Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine justices.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 1.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court's job is to tell the American people the truth about the law, even when that truth is unpopular, even when a President doesn't like it, and even when Congress doesn't like it.

That only works if the Court is independent. Alexander Hamilton expressed this in Federalist 78. He explained that the courts must be insulated from the political branches or they cannot do their job of protecting the rights of the people.

Disagreeing with the Supreme Court is not just legitimate. It is American. We amend the Constitution, or we pass new laws. We elect Presidents who appoint different judges. That is how you change outcomes you don't like. That is the process the Founders gave us. But there is a world of difference between changing the law and changing the rules of the game because you don't like the last call.

Packing the Court is not simply a policy disagreement. It is an attempt to change the structure of one of the three branches of government in order to guarantee the outcome you want.

That is not reform. That is revolution.

Here is the question every American should ask: If a sitting majority can change the size of the Supreme Court the moment it dislikes rulings, what happens the next time the other side is in power? What stops them from doing the same thing?

As Justice Breyer said, this will start an ``arms race.''

Once you go down that road, the Court stops being an independent check on government power. It becomes another political institution controlled by whoever happens to hold the majority.

We have already seen what this kind of rhetoric looks like. In 2020, Senator Schumer stood outside the Supreme Court and told Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: `` . . . you have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price.'' That was a threat, a threat that goes well beyond any normal policy disagreement.

Mr. Speaker, 2 years later, an armed man was arrested outside Justice Kavanaugh's home. Thankfully, law enforcement intervened before anyone was hurt.

Words have consequences, and when political leaders convince people that the Supreme Court is illegitimate, some people take that rhetoric seriously.

Some on the left aren't even hiding where this leads. The Democratic Socialists of America now openly call for abolishing the Senate and replacing the Presidency and the Supreme Court. I am not making that up. That is in their platform.

Seeking to expand the Court is an admission that your arguments have not been good enough to persuade voters or your fellow legislators. We rely on a political process, including robust one-on-one debates, to convince voters that ours are the superior plans.

When you can no longer convince enough voters that you have the best ideas, you have two choices: You can go back to voters with a better argument, or you can try to change the system so their vote doesn't matter as much.

That is why the amendment before us is so important. It fixes the number of Justices at nine permanently. That is not because nine is a magic number. It is because a fixed Court cannot be expanded by whoever happens to win the next election. It makes the rule the same regardless of who is in power.

To my friends on the other side of the aisle: We don't have to like every decision the Supreme Court makes. Heaven knows there are plenty of decisions I have disagreed with. That is not the point. The point is whether we are willing to live under a Constitution that limits our power even when we are the ones holding it.

If we want to change the law, we can change the law, but we should not change the Supreme Court simply because we don't like the people sitting on it.

Constitutional government requires accepting outcomes we don't like and fighting for change the right way: through elections, through legislation, and through the amendment process this very body is using today.

Let's keep the Supreme Court independent. Let's keep it at nine Justices, and let's keep the Constitution bigger than whoever happens to be in power.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I get it, that the gentleman does not like Donald J. Trump and that this is an ideological position he is taking, which is kind of what the scholars have said is the definition of Court packing. When you want to increase the number of people on the Supreme Court so you can effectuate your ideological bent, yes, that is Court packing.

This isn't new, this position that we are taking today. This was introduced in the 116th, which was under Donald Trump. It was introduced in the 118th, which was under Joe Biden. By the way, it was Joe Biden's own special commission that said it would be wrong to actually increase the number of people on the Supreme Court. Now, we have introduced this in the 119th.

I do appreciate the gentleman talking about Arizona needs representation on the Supreme Court. I also think we need representation in the Ninth Circuit--it would be nice if you could help us along there--the circuit, a court that actually goes from the equator to the Arctic Circle. You can't even get an en banc there because they have 29 justices, appellate judges. You can't get an en banc in the Ninth because it is all random.

Anyway, back to the point here, my colleagues on the other side tell us that the Supreme Court has changed before. They are right. However, there is an important piece of history that they leave out. For much of the 19th century, the size of the Supreme Court was tied to the size of the Federal judiciary. As the country expanded and Congress created new judicial circuits, Congress added Justices to help carry those responsibilities, but that changed in 1869.

Congress fixed the Court at nine Justices, and for more than half of the length of this country, it has been nine Justices, regardless of the number of circuits.

There is one historical example that matters most to the question before us today, and that is Franklin Roosevelt who, in 1937, after winning reelection, was furious that the Supreme Court had repeatedly struck down parts of his New Deal as unconstitutional. That was the birth, perhaps, of the attempt to have an imperial executive.

Instead of changing laws to comply with the Constitution, he proposed changing the Court. His plans would have allowed him to add up to six new Justices, and who would appoint those Justices? The President of the United States would. Who was the President? Franklin Roosevelt.

Everyone understood what was happening. It wasn't about building a better courthouse. It wasn't about adding circuits. It wasn't about helping manage expanding judicial caseload. It was about changing the composition of the Court for ideological purposes.

Here is what happened: The plan faced fierce opposition, including from members of Roosevelt's own party. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes pushed back. The Senate ultimately rejected the plan, and this is what they said--this is from the records today: ``We recommend the rejection of this bill as a needless, futile, and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle.'' Not holding firm at nine, but because you wanted--not you, but the Democratic Party at that time--not even the Democratic Party, excuse me, let's be very clear, one individual, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

``It is a proposal without precedent and without justification,'' they said. ``It would subjugate the courts to the will of Congress and the President and thereby destroy the independence of the judiciary, the only certain shield of individual rights.''

``It points the way to the evasion of the Constitution and establishes the method whereby the people may be deprived of their right to pass upon all amendments of the fundamental law.''

``It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.''

Do you know what ``it'' was, the measure that they were so offended by? It was an attempt to pack the Court.

Next time, I will probably start reading all the folks on the other side who want to do that very thing.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do think it is a charming and quaint argument to say that President Trump has packed the Court.

Here are some patterns that you need to know just from the last term alone: 50 percent of the cases decided were decided unanimously. That doesn't sound like a packed Court, and only 5 of 57 cases, just 8 percent, were decided 6-3 with six Republican appointees on one side and three Democrats on the other. Ninety percent of the 57 cases were decided with at least one liberal Justice in the majority, 90 percent.

The three liberal Justices voted together in fewer than one-quarter of the nine unanimous cases. That doesn't sound like packing. That sounds like a lot of thoughtful folks on the United States Supreme Court rendering decisions they believe in and they believe comprise constitutional opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), who is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I get a kick out of their arguing about following the constitutional tradition and talking about using the constitutional system. That is exactly what we are doing. We are using the constitutional system. This is not the first time this has been offered. This has been used multiple times.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Schmidt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consternation my colleague across the aisle has when he says that he hasn't found any arguments persuasive.

Let me tell you something: He would never find any of these arguments persuasive because he wants to pack the Court. His very argument is that if you pass a constitutional amendment, you can never change the Constitution. It is absolutely one of the most specious arguments I have heard because if you amend the Constitution, guess what. Does that mean that that amendment itself, that you have brought in, can never be amended again? No, because the system is clear, the system that he has been arguing against this entire time. The system, the Constitution itself, allows us to say to the American people: We would like to amend the Constitution. We are going to give it to you. We think this should be done.

Mr. Speaker, that is really what we are talking about here. We are talking about this failure to appreciate the position that they sit in. They say that this whole thing, quite frankly, has been about Donald Trump. That is what their whole argument against this has been.

Oh, they passed this immunity clause. Where did that come from? Well, maybe stare decisis. That is what they argue. That is where the Court is. Take a peek at that. Yes, go back and read it. You will enjoy it.

Here is the deal. They sit right now upset over a few decisions that this Supreme Court has made. They cannot accept that you have probably three conservatives, three liberals, and three in the middle. That is where the Court sits today.

An amendment freezing this at nine, first of all, doesn't mean that you can never amend it again, but it also doesn't mean that these are going to be the same nine in perpetuity for eternity.

They want to set aside a tradition that has been in place for over 150 years.

They make this argument regarding the circuits. Guess what. Those circuits have changed and changed, but oddly enough, we have kept it at nine. Instead, they want to negate and have ignored what their personnel have said for the last few years, ever since Donald J. Trump was reelected, ever since you put some new people on the Court, even though, as we take a look, they are winning cases against this administration.

Yet, they say that we have to take and expand this so we can get to 13. That is what they want. Why do they want it? It is because they want to make it progressive. They want to turn the Court around. They want to change its ideological principles or what they perceive to be ideological principles.

That is what they want. They want to pack the Court. That is what packing is. It is where you put a number there. That is why Stephen Breyer said and that is why Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, no, don't do that.

Justice Breyer said that if you do that and it is 13 next time, does it become 21 after that, or 50, or where does it end, because it becomes a political arms race at the Supreme Court.

We are saying not to get into a political arms race. Let's make it permanently nine. Let's give it to the voters. That is a rational thing. It will never be persuasive to these folks, and that is too bad because guess what. This has been comfortable. The Biden administration was comfortable with nine.

This particular provision was proposed in the 116th Congress, in the 118th Congress, and now again in the 119th Congress. It didn't matter whether there was a Republican or a Democrat in the White House. What it meant was let's make sure the Supreme Court is protected from those who want to change it ideologically. That is where they are. That is why everyone should be supporting this particular amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Constitution Day coming up, commemorating the day our Constitution was signed in Philadelphia.

The Constitution was debated, written, and signed at a fragile moment in our Nation's history. Yet, through the wisdom of our Founders and their unwavering determination to secure liberty for future generations, they produced a document that has stood the test of time.

For nearly two-and-a-half centuries, the Constitution has safeguarded our freedoms, restrained the power of government, and served as an enduring example to people around the world who aspire to liberty and self-government.

This year, we celebrated the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. That remarkable milestone was only possible because generations of Americans have preserved the principles our Founders enshrined in the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I am profoundly grateful for those who went before, framed this extraordinary document, and for the liberty it has secured for generations of Americans. I hope it endures another 250 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Alia Moses, Chief U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas.

I first met Chief Judge Moses in May 2022 in my capacity as co-chair of the Congressional Border Security Caucus. The United States was seeing an unprecedented wave of illegal immigration across the southern border, and Members of the House were actively trying to understand the impacts on our Nation, including the impact on our Federal court system.

A member of the caucus who was aware of Judge Moses and her caseload recommended we seek her input, inviting her to virtually participate in our monthly meeting. Since that first connection, she has become a good friend and has been a wealth of information.

My staff and I have traveled to Del Rio, Texas, the division in which she sits, on multiple occasions, even bringing fellow Members of the House with us to meet her in person.

It gives me joy to share her story with you today. Chief Judge Moses is a story of firsts and one that should inspire us all. The chief was the youngest of six children born to her dear parents, Amelia and Abdalla Moses, and raised in the small farming community of Quemado, Texas, a mere 35 miles from where she would ascend to chief judge.

With the support of her parents and siblings, she graduated from Texas Woman's University and became the first in her family to attend law school, choosing the University of Texas.

In 1990, only a few years out of law school and working as an assistant county attorney in Austin, Chief Judge Moses was tapped to establish the U.S. Attorney's Office in Del Rio, Texas, where she continued until she was appointed as a magistrate judge in 1997.

On July 11, 2002, she was nominated by President George W. Bush to serve as a U.S. district judge for the Western District of Texas. On November 18, 2002, she took the oath of office, becoming the first female district judge for the Western District of Texas and the first district judge to reside in the Del Rio Division. Exactly 20 years later, on November 18, 2022, Judge Moses became the first female chief judge of the district.

Her impressive legal career isn't the only enduring aspect of her life. She has served as a mentor and guidepost for those around her. During her time as district judge, she has placed a priority on lifting up the young lawyers working for her, saying: ``My ambition now is to have a legacy of helping others, who will then turn around and help the next generation . . . `'

I could tell you her ambition is true, and she has made good on that ambition, aim, and goal.

I have personally interacted with a handful of her law clerks who possess great admiration and gratitude for her. On her 20th anniversary of serving as a district judge, some of her former law clerks have offered heartfelt sentiments, including: I didn't understand the jackpot I was hitting until after I got to Judge Moses' court. . . . Her confidence and command of the courtroom are inspiring. I take something I have learned from her and use it every day in my professional career.

Another said: It is like a mentorship for life.

A member of my own staff had the privilege of interning with her for a few weeks after completing his first year of law school and continues to sing her praises.

In my experience, her teaching and guidance aren't exclusive to those under her legal tutelage. In 2024, my staff organized a delegation of staffers from other Capitol Hill offices interested in learning more about the border and Federal court system. Among their many meetings, Chief Judge Moses welcomed them to her Del Rio courtroom. She provided them with the opportunity to attend court proceedings and to meet with the head of each of the court's components. We still hear from staff about the impact of that experience and how it better prepared them to serve their elected Representatives here in Washington, D.C.

Some years ago, Chief Judge Moses reflected on influences in her life, saying: ``It is amazing how God puts these mentors in your life. I wonder if they realize what kind of impact they are having on you when they are your mentors.''

I am confident she has had that same effect on many generations of law clerks and those who have had the opportunity to learn from her. I know she has had that impact on my own chief of staff, who speaks of her example, guidance, devotion, and friendship often.

Chief Judge Moses is an inspiration to all young women dreaming of what they can achieve. While I have only known her for a small portion of her 24 years on the bench, her dedication, her patriotism, and her love for the law

and the Constitution are evident to me. Our great Nation is blessed by her service, and my family, my staff, and I are blessed by her friendship.

This month, Chief Judge Moses will be honored by having her official portrait hung in the United States Federal Courthouse in San Antonio, Texas. This tribute is well deserved. It further cements her place in history and her example for all those following in her footsteps.

I say this only once and only for Chief Judge Moses: Hook `em Horns. I congratulate her on this immense honor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, over the past few months, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has taken the lead on investigating a staggering amount of fraud. The common theme we have seen in this fraud has been bad actors taking advantage of emergency funds from the government. Agencies disburse money from these taxpayer-funded accounts to help those in need when an emergency, such as the COVID pandemic, cause major disruptions in the day-to-day lives of Americans.

Emergency relief funds are meant to help families stay afloat in a crisis. Instead, a lack of planning by and failures of oversight of Federal agencies have turned these emergency funds into a jackpot for fraudsters.

For example, a central point of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison's oversight hearing dealt with his ties to the criminals in the Feeding Our Future scheme. That scheme involved more than $250 million in taxpayer money being stolen by the Feeding Our Future organization, which defrauded USDA's COVID programs.

What became glaringly evident in the aftermath of the COVID pandemic was that government agencies were not properly equipped to deal with emergency relief funds. Even those in government, such as Minnesota's Attorney General Ellison, have failed to investigate and even potentially aided fraudsters abusing these funds.

It was one of the largest COVID-era fraud schemes in the country, and it happened right under the nose of Minnesota's top law enforcement officer.

That is why we need to make sure emergency relief funds are protected from fraud. In total, the Government Accountability Office estimates that a staggering 19 different pandemic relief programs were defrauded from 2020 to 2024 to the tune of $300 billion. What is even more disturbing is that was just the fraud in COVID-related programs.

In addition to COVID-related fraud, the Government Accountability Office also estimates that the government may lose as much as $521 billion. That is not waste. That is not error. That is a heist of historic proportions.

These numbers are practically unfathomable. Yet, here they are staring at us as a reality. We, quite literally, cannot afford as a country to be losing that amount of money per year to fraudsters. Our national dealt is nearing $39 trillion.

That is why I joined my Democratic colleague (Mr. Subramanyam), and we introduced the TRUE Accountability Act together. That passed out of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform unanimously.

The TRUE Accountability Act is simple. It tells Federal agencies to plan ahead, protect taxpayer dollars, and stop treating fraud as an afterthought or a cost just built into the system as a feature, because it is time to bring some accountability to our government so that we stop losing untold amounts of hard-earned taxpayer money.

This act forces government agencies to be better prepared for an emergency, requires them to make internal plans that incorporate data- driven frameworks such as the GAO's A Framework for Managing Improper Payments in Emergency Assistance Programs, and A Framework for Managing Fraud Risk in 20 Federal Programs.

These plans will include policies and procedures to assess risks of improper payments, fraud, and related mitigation strategies, as well as to identify a senior official responsible and accountable for implementing the plan.

These internal plans will go a long way in combating any potential fraud that might occur when emergency relief funds are disbursed.

We must not be caught off guard the next time an emergency hits. In an emergency, people's lives are already upended. They don't need to also be worrying about fraudsters looting the Federal Treasury. We need to be ready to act in an efficient manner that protects taxpayer dollars.

This is a commonsense, bipartisan effort that both sides of the aisle can easily agree on, and it must be passed to safeguard the hard-earned money of American taxpayers.

Fraudsters learned from the COVID-era. With this bill, next time we will be ready for them, not the other way around.

I remember that well, and I thank you for allowing me to speak a little bit about our friend.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Congressman Bill Posey, who represented Florida's 15th and Eighth Districts for more than 16 years and devoted his career to serving the people he loved.

Bill's public service began in the 1970s on the Rockledge City Council, and he went on to serve in both the Florida House and the Florida State Senate. He earned a reputation as champion of fiscal responsibility, government accountability, and policies that strengthened working families.

He never viewed public office as a platform for himself. He saw it as a responsibility to serve others with integrity and purpose.

Bill's commitment to his district was unmatched. He loved his district. He loved the Space Coast. He understood its history, industries, and people. No one fought harder for America's leadership in space exploration.

Drawing on his own experience working on the Apollo program at Kennedy Space Center, he became one of Congress' strongest advocates for NASA, domestic manufacturing, and the aerospace workforce that defines Florida's Space Coast.

He showed how a Member can fiercely defend a district's core industries without falling into subsidies and cronyism, staying true to his principles of limited government and free market strength. Bill was also a national leader in advancing transparency.

He pushed Congress to read the bills it votes on and was instrumental in securing the rule that requires legislation be publicly available for 72 hours before a vote. Wouldn't it be nice to go back to that? Sure would be nice to go back to that standard that Bill worked so hard to set up.

He worked to reform and strengthen trust in the institution and reminded all of us that accountability begins right here at home in Congress.

I had the privilege of serving with Bill in the House Freedom Caucus, where we fought side by side for limited government, fiscal discipline, and the belief that Washington works best when it works within the Constitution.

Bill lived those principles every day.

Getting back to what we were talking about, he invited me to come down to his district. I was the chairman of the Freedom Caucus, and he said: I need you to come on down to my district. We went, and it was basically a day-and-a-half of real education for me in campaigning because there was not a free moment to sit down.

I will tell you this: I couldn't understand why he thought I needed to be down there, because he was so well loved. It was amazing.

Bill Posey approached public service with humility, steadiness, and a deep love for the people he represented. He will be missed. I miss him.

I wish to express my condolences to his wonderful wife, Katie. What a gracious host she was for me when I was down there. She made sure I had everything I needed and more.

I will say this: Bill leaves behind a legacy of principled leadership, tireless advocacy, love of family, love of country, love of God, and an example of how to be a Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am grateful, indeed, for the opportunity to address one of the most consequential issues facing our great Republic: the Federal Government's warrantless surveillance of the American people.

For years, Americans have watched headline after headline exposing the intelligence community's abuse of its authority, and I thought I would share just a few of those.

Most recently, John Brennan admitted that there is a legion of deep state operatives in DOJ and CIA who are resisting Trump's orders. Why is that important?

It is because they are the ones who violate the warrant requirement, as well.

House approves reauthorization of FISA 702, warrantless spy powers, and yet when you go and read it, we have problems still. We still have problems. Why do we know that? Because the FISC, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, has issued a report. It is classified. Former DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard wanted to declassify that secret but critical court document but was denied. Actually, in my opinion, that needs to be released before we ever take a vote on FISA again.

I will just leave it there on those headlines and get back to this.

President Trump has an agenda. He won the popular vote in a landslide. In my home State, he got 160,000 votes more than the Democrat. How did he do it? Because the people wanted him to get his agenda through, but it is being sidestepped and avoided.

Who are the people that are causing the problem, according to John Brennan? It is the same people that spied on

President Trump's campaign previously. They abused FISA. The abuses are not hypothetical. They are not ancient. They didn't just happen in 2016. They are ongoing. That is what Tulsi Gabbard and the FISC court have discovered, and we need to discover that, as well.

Section 702 has been used to search the communications of protesters across the political spectrum, 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign, Members of Congress, congressional staff, journalists, and ordinary Americans who did nothing wrong.

Now, it has come to my attention that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has this opinion that is sitting there. It details significant government compliance failures under section 702. We need that to be declassified. The American people, this great Republic, need to know what their government is doing.

The opinion must be declassified in order for us to know what we are doing in Congress to take a vote on this. Without transparency, the American people and their elected Representatives cannot have a meaningful, fact-driven debate about the future of this powerful authority.

Reports indicate the opinion will show persistent, systemic violations of the law, including U.S. person queries that directly violate the oversight requirements Congress established in the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, just from a couple of years ago.

One filtering tool tied to these violations has been shut down, but similar tools remain in use. This is exactly why I have consistently pushed for a warrant requirement for U.S. person queries.

The Fourth Amendment is not ambiguous. It says, ``no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause''--not sometimes, not when it is convenient, not unless the intelligence community thinks it takes too long.

We keep hearing the same tired argument: Getting a warrant is too hard. Getting a warrant takes too long. That is simply false. The work we have done in my bill, H.R. 7816, the Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act, ensures that is the case.

H.R. 7816 includes targeted, practical exceptions for imminent threats, cybersecurity emergencies, and consent situations. It protects Americans and preserves the government's ability to act quickly when lives are on the line. Anyone claiming otherwise either hasn't taken the time to read the bill, has read some propaganda, has accepted the intelligence community's narrative, or simply does not want reform.

As we in Congress keep negotiating what FISA and section 702 reform should look like, we seem to be forgetting that my bill is already the negotiated bill. We worked with a wide range of Members and stakeholders. We built a bipartisan coalition, and last Congress, we reached a 212-212 vote on my warrant requirement, one vote away from passing. It was sitting at 212-211 for a long time, and then someone came in and cast a ``no'' vote.

This is fundamentally the same bill. The work has been done. The consensus exists. The excuses have run out. Meanwhile, the intelligence community continues to assure us that: This time, we will follow the rules; this time, we will respect the Constitution; and this time, we will stop violating Americans' privacy.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard that promise for a decade and more. The latest FISA court opinion, the one they are trying to keep classified, proves those promises are empty.

President Trump's administration took historic steps to increase transparency across government, and I appreciate former Director Gabbard's stated commitment to declassify this FISC opinion.

The commitment must be honored. Declassification is essential to restoring trust, strengthening accountability, and ensuring every branch of government operates within constitutional limits.

At the end of the day, this debate comes down to a simple principle: If you want to spy on Americans, you have to get a warrant. That is not radical. That is not partisan. That is the Constitution.

Benjamin Franklin warned that those who trade essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither. For too long, Washington has done exactly that: traded away constitutional privacy for the illusion of security.

We are told that, without warrantless surveillance, America will be less safe. That is wrong. We can have both liberty and safety. It is the government's job to protect both, not force Americans to choose between them.

We cannot allow a legacy going to our grandchildren where they will end up growing up in a country where mass surveillance is normal and constitutional protections are optional. Congress has a responsibility right now to stop that future from becoming a reality.

Let me just add this: When we talk about CBDC, it is the last leg of the stool of surveillance. If CBDC were to become a reality, with the mass surveillance that is in FISA right now, guess what. It wouldn't be too long before we started looking like our main foe internationally, the Chinese. They surveil everything.

Do you know what? The U.K. surveils everything, as well. They watch everything.

What CBDC would do would allow them to shut down the entire banking system or your microbanking system and control you. It could be abused so quickly, so thoroughly, and so completely.

I will tell you that I am grateful for the bipartisan Members who have joined me in this fight. We have a lot of them. We may not agree on much, but we do agree on this: The Constitution still matters. It is real. In just 13 years, we will be celebrating its 250th.

If the government wants to search Americans' communications--which is what they want to do, and it is what they are doing--it must get a warrant. That is the requirement of the Constitution that I took an oath to protect and defend.

Mr. Speaker, and my friend from Texas, Mr. Self, I thank you for this. I would say this: Be careful. There are some illusions out there. There are some false prophets coming forward to tell you that they are going to fix this problem, but they are offering a false doctrine. There should be no hope in that. We should put no faith in that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding young men of Sigma Nu Fraternity at Arizona State University.

I had the pleasure of spending time with this group last month and am encouraged by their honorable character, discipline in the classroom, and desire to do good.

ASU Sigma Nus have a rich understanding of our Constitution and recognize the importance of civic engagement. They also desire to make a meaningful difference to those around them, routinely partnering with organizations like Childhelp and the Food Recovery Network to fight food waste and hunger.

Sigma Nus are also leaders who serve in ASU's student government and in a variety of campus clubs.

When young men surround themselves with peers who challenge them to grow and live with integrity, they are better prepared to serve their families, communities, and the Nation.

The men I met at Sigma Nu were thoughtful, driven, and deeply committed to serving others. I have no doubt they will continue to make a just and positive impact on their campus, throughout Arizona, and across our country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank them for their leadership, their example, and their commitment to these timeless values.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1275, I call up the bill (H.R. 8365) to provide for conditions on the appointment of monitors by courts, 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 8365.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8365 is the result of a field hearing that the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance held in February in Phoenix, Arizona.

While that hearing focused on the special monitor in Maricopa County, it has implications for residents across the Nation who also find their law enforcement agencies held hostage by a special monitor or consent decree.

Since December 2013, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, MCSO, has been under a Federal judicial oversight following a DOJ intervention into the 2008 case of Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio.

In 2007, Latino motorists and passengers, aided by the ACLU, filed a lawsuit against then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The lawsuit alleged that MCSO violated the Fourth and 14th Amendments by engaging in a systematic practice of unconstitutional racial profiling, including stopping, detaining, and arresting Latino individuals during traffic stops and patrol operations based on race or perceived immigration status.

Following a bench trial in December 2011, U.S. District Judge Murray Snow ruled in 2013 that MCSO had violated constitutional protections and imposed permanent injunctions that required MCSO to implement sweeping reforms to policies, training, operations, and internal investigations.

Unlike a consent decree, which is a negotiated settlement agreed to by the parties, the court imposed these injunctions after findings of liability.

DOJ consent decrees are typically entered into voluntarily by State or local governments to resolve a civil rights investigation without a trial, even though they can result in similarly extensive Federal oversight and court-appointed monitoring.

In January 2014, Judge Snow appointed Federal court monitor Robert Warshaw to oversee MCSO's compliance with the court's permanent injunctions, including reforms intended to address racial discrimination during traffic stops and deficiencies in policy development and oversight.

Following that, in July 2015, the court mandated additional remedial measures, including further policy revisions to further strengthen oversight mechanisms.

The Federal court monitoring was intended to last only until MCSO achieved full and effective compliance with the court's injunctions, yet oversight has continued for more than a decade without a fixed end date.

This extended judicial supervision has placed significant financial burdens on Maricopa County taxpayers, with costs reportedly reaching nearly $350 million.

Most of these expenses include the administrative efforts needed to demonstrate compliance with court orders.

For example, despite remote work and meetings in 2021, the county was responsible for funding a 3,200-square-foot office suite for the monitor, which cost taxpayers $97,000 for a year.

This persistent Federal judicial intervention has created operational challenges for MCSO, including difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified deputies. All of these things, by the way, are consistent with monitoring that is going on in most of the country.

The increased administrative workload and ongoing scrutiny have led to a decline in staff retention and discouraged potential recruits from pursuing careers within the department, which is ultimately impacting the office's ability to serve and protect the community, one of the largest counties in the country, with over 5\1/2\ million people.

The Federal court monitor typically issues quarterly reports tracking MCSO's compliance with the court-ordered reforms and provides the court with independent assessments of policy implementation. Over the course of more than 40 reports, MCSO's compliance rate increased from below 30 percent in 2014 to over 94 percent by 2025, which meets the standard that requires the agency to demonstrate adherence in more than 94 percent of instances under review.

According to Warshaw, the MCSO's compliance framework has become self-sustaining and institutionalized. Warshaw also labeled the MCSO's compliance with policies, training, and supervisory review as solid, noting that the compliance measures were fully built into the agency's daily work, showing full, independent accountability.

Earlier this year, the Department of Justice, which originally intervened in this case in 2011, filed a brief supporting Maricopa County's request to end Federal oversight, noting that the litigation has been successful in reforming the agency.

By the way, we are on the fourth elected sheriff since this original complaint was filed.

The Department argued that the extensive reforms imposed through the court-appointed monitoring regime have been successful in correcting the unconstitutional practices identified in the original case, which you will recall was the racial profiling of Latino motorists.

DOJ cited multiple recent monitor reports, which document consistently high compliance rates, institutionalized policy adherence, effective training programs, and durable accountability mechanisms. The Department indicated that continued Federal supervision is no longer necessary to ensure constitutional policing, supporting termination of the court-appointed monitoring regime.

Maricopa County is not the only jurisdiction monitored by Robert Warshaw and his associates. Warshaw has been accused of taking exorbitant payments without producing results in monitoring law enforcement agencies in New York, California, Michigan, and Louisiana.

For example, Warshaw faced criticism for the duration, high cost, and evolving compliance benchmarks. In other words, he was moving the goalpost of Federal oversight in Oakland, California. Despite reportedly spending little time in Oakland, Warshaw is currently paid more than $1 million annually by the city, a structure that incentivizes prolonging the monitorship, just like we see in Maricopa County.

Compared to monitors who operate under narrowly defined mandates and fixed timelines, Warshaw's role continuously blurs the line between oversight and management. Questions about judgment incentives also follow Warshaw from Niagara Falls, New York, for example.

Together, episodes in New York and various jurisdictions that have had Warshaw, the critics have cited this systemic pattern in which Warshaw's work unfolds with limited transparency. In fact, when he bills Maricopa County, he won't tell them what he did, and the court won't make him. There were minimal cost controls and little external checks on the expansion or duration of his authority.

While I agreed with very little that former AG Merrick Garland did while in office, he actually had pretty good ideas on how to deal with these issues involving monitors.

In April 2021, he asked then-Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta to conduct a 4-month review of how the Justice Department appoints and oversees Federal monitors in settlement agreements and consent decrees. In August 2021, Associate AG Gupta responded with 19 recommendations stemming from five core principles. The principles included minimizing costs and conflicts of interest, ensuring monitors' accountability, compliance assessment, community engagement, and efficient reform.

A notable reform included in the memorandum was imposing term limits for Federal monitors. The significance of these recommendations sets clear expectations for time-limited oversight, ensuring that Federal monitorships are not indefinite.

Mr. Speaker, I want everyone to realize that this applies to monitorships not just in Maricopa County; not just in Niagara Falls, New York; not just in Oakland, California; or in Baltimore, Maryland, where Warshaw was a monitor, or anyplace involving Warshaw. It was so spread out, and the concern was so great, that former Attorney General Merrick Garland asked for the study because even he understood that the monitorships had been abused.

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

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

I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with us. That is why we had a field hearing. That is why Democrats were extended the invitation to come; give us the name of someone you want to testify.

Do you know how many people across the aisle came to that hearing? Zero, zip, nada came. Democrats didn't come. They were uninterested. They didn't want to hear from Merrick Garland. They didn't want to come.

So the Democrats said, oh, well, okay, we are not going to do that. And then they are going to stand up and say some rather wild things about that this only applies to Maricopa County and that the monitorship ends at the end of 5 years. That is not true. That is not what this bill does.

The bill says the monitor, the current monitor, is done after 5 years. And why is that? It is because regardless, not just this monitor but how about the monitor that has been in Oakland, California, for 20- some-odd years or other monitors around the country? What happens is, as Merrick Garland said, and as Associate Attorney General Gupta said, they build up incentives. All of a sudden, they had incentives because it is a monetary incentive, and they need to avoid the conflict of interest.

That was the first principle--that was within the first principle that Merrick Garland put together, avoid the conflict of interest.

Guess what. If the Court were to say we are going to continue the monitorship, you get a new monitor. And, quite frankly, the AG also said these things should be simple. These things should be simple. They should be focused. I don't think that someone who is capable of becoming a court monitor is not going to be able to get up to speed pretty doggone quickly. That is the argument that they are making over there.

Let's see who supports this: The National Association of Police, Arizona Sheriffs' Association, Major County Sheriffs of America, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, and also the California police associations. They all support this because all their departments have been taken over.

How about this one? I think this is a kick in the pants. They basically roll the monitor. This is the fourth sheriff. The DOJ has said they are in substantial compliance, and guess what, this monitor has taken to micromanaging even the uniforms, the stripes for officers. Oh, no, you can't put them up here. You want them down on the front part of the sleeve. That is what the Maricopa County monitor has done.

That is not unique to Maricopa County. The monitors get in, and they micromanage even the most absurd things that have nothing to do with the issue that brought this forward, which was this: the racial profiling in traffic stops. The monitor himself has said in his reports they are in substantial compliance. There is no statistical significance in any difference between any racial demographic in Arizona.

The monitorship has a monetary incentive, and that is what you are seeing. That is why you see these monitorships run amuck around the country.

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

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

Merrick Garland's memo says this: ``Principle: Monitorships should be designed to minimize the cost to jurisdictions''--the one in Maricopa County is $350 million; the one in Oakland is who knows how many millions of dollars--``and to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.''

It goes on to be a little bit more specific: ``Monitorships must nonetheless be designed and administered with awareness that every dollar spent on a monitorship is a dollar that cannot be spent on other policy priorities.''

In other words, don't divert the taxpayers' money so they can't fulfill all of their responsibilities.

Here is another quote: ``Monitorships should be designed to avoid even the appearance that a monitor is primarily motivated by profit.''

We have a monitor in Maricopa County, for instance, who gets $3 million a year on average over the term of his monitorship and who seems to be moving the goalposts, just like he did in Oakland. These seem to be saying: Hey, maybe he does have a profit motivation.

Specifically, this is what they recommend: Cap the monitor fees, an annual cap on monitor fees; encourage use of pro bono time, reduced rates, and nonprofits; explore alternative fee arrangements; and restrict lead monitor participation in multiple monitorships.

We have tried to get at all those things in the current bill.

They go on to say this: ``Future consent decrees should limit the ability of the individual who serves as the lead monitor to serve on more than one monitoring team at a time. . . . But the person serving as the lead monitor should be solely committed to the jurisdiction they are serving and should not be simultaneously supporting multiple monitorships at the same time.''

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

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

The gentleman was just arguing essentially for monitors, which continues to hamstring police agencies around the country. I guess he wasn't here when I started reading off how agencies around the country support this bill because they are impacted negatively by rogue monitors.

I will just go back to my colleague saying, hey, we didn't--nobody came.

Nobody went to Phoenix because we thought this was an unserious endeavor.

They could have come. They could have tried to make it serious by bringing their witness, the witness he said he would like to have come in now. He could have brought that witness in then. He chose not to.

I think maybe the unseriousness is on your side not taking this issue serious because it does impact the entire country.

We know it does. Because why? Because former Attorney General Merrick Garland said: Hey, I am so concerned about it, I am going to commission somebody to spend several months to research this and give us some recommendations.

My bill is attempting to implement those recommendations, and I encourage their support of it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill actually would help save money by holding monitors responsible, making sure that they are responsible. That is important.

When they start talking about $1 billion, remember that just compliance costs and the cost of this particular monitor that they are very focused on has cost the taxpayers there over $350 million, over one-third of a billion dollars.

The monitor in Baltimore right now submitted their bill recently for $1.5 million. That is just a fee, mind you, Mr. Speaker, of the monitor, $1.5 million. That doesn't include whatever compliance costs there may be.

The second principle that came out of Attorney General Merrick Garland's position was this: When consent decrees involve State and local entities, monitors hold the position of public trust, not only as agents of the court, but as drivers of significant change of public institutions that are central to the communities that they serve, and, thus, they must be structured to ensure that monitors are accountable-- are accountable--for their work.

That is what my bill does. It creates accountability because there is no accountability there.

If it was all resting in the judge, Merrick Garland could have just said: We will just leave it up to the judge, because that is what the Democrats want.

However, they say you must have an opportunity for public input.

This is interesting: Consent decrees should include term limits for monitors that could be renewed, but they should have term limits.

Those term limits need to be reviewed after 2 to 3 years to determine whether they are performing properly, are cost-effective, and are providing technical assistance. That is what the memo said, and we are trying to get that codified.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman thinks this is a silly effort, and he doesn't know if Merrick Garland or Associate Attorney General Gupta supports it. Did he care enough to call them? Did he ask? One wonders. He is saying, oh, they didn't call me. That is what he said, that they didn't call him.

Here is the deal. In the pleadings in the case, the record shows that MCSO has implemented the key reforms required by the court orders, including policies, training, supervision, data collection analysis, and accountability systems related to bias-free policing and traffic enforcement. That is in the pleadings in the court.

In that context, MCSO has achieved substantial compliance with the court's orders, which, by the way, is what Associate Attorney General Gupta said is the measure for ending a monitorship, substantial compliance.

Let's talk about the bill. The reality is, this is not just for Maricopa County. There are monitors throughout this country. Let's just go through the bill a little bit. They didn't want to do that because they want to talk about all kinds of things tangential to this, because when you read the bill, you realize it is not about Maricopa County. It is about monitors. It is about monitors and making sure that they have guideposts and guidelines.

Fees: They ``may not assess a fee in excess of such maximum rates as the administrator may establish.'' There is nothing about Maricopa County there. That is the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. They ``shall be authorized to employ the use of pro bono time or reduced rates.''

``Such person may not be appointed to more than one such monitorship at a time,'' consistent with what was in the Garland memo, or ``appointed for a term greater than 5 years.'' They can't be. They also can't be ``reappointed after the expiration of such term pursuant to the same court order,'' if it is the same court order.

A subsequent monitor ``who is appointed to a monitorship after the expiration of the term of a monitor who served pursuant to the same court order may not be employed by the same employer as the previous monitor.'' Why? Because Merrick Garland said you can't have a conflict of interest. You also cannot basically have someone without a term limit because that puts somebody there with a financial incentive to keep the monitorship going, regardless of compliance.

Termination: ``In the case that a court, a party, or a monitor seeks to revise a monitorship imposed by a court order, the court shall conduct a hearing.''

``The court may only revise a requirement of a monitorship with respect to which the subject of the monitorship has not attained substantial and sustained compliance.'' I just read to you that they have. The monitor found that in Arizona. This applies nationwide.

``On the date that is 6 years after the court order,'' the case gets transferred from one judge to another.

Accounting: ``On an annual basis, a monitor shall submit to the Court imposing the monitorship an accounting,'' including ``information on the services provided.'' Why don't they want that? I wonder why they don't want that amongst all the monitors around the country? Why don't you want them to provide an accounting?

Right now, we have places in this country where the monitor just simply gives a bill to the county and says: For services rendered, $200,000 this month. It does become retroactive.

``It is the sense of Congress that monitoring is a public service and monitorships should be structured to encourage the use of pro bono time or reduced rates.''

That is the simplicity of this bill. It gets at the heart of the nub of the Garland memo. This doesn't focus on one monitor. It doesn't focus on one location. It says every monitorship will be subject to this.

It doesn't say monitorships are bad or unconstitutional. It says they have to be performing without conflict of interest and without incentives to make sure that they keep going because they want compliance. We need them to ensure compliance, not to make sure that they are lining their own pockets, that it doesn't become a grift, that you don't get $30 million over 10 years coming in as your fee when you are also monitoring multiple jurisdictions. That is what is at the heart of the Gupta memo, and that is what is at the heart of this bill.

Contrary to what one of my colleagues says, that it is not unusual not to have a bill with a Senator sponsor, not every bill has a Senator sponsor. It is not required.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that this bill gets to the very heart of making sure that a monitorship does not become abusive, overbearing, and negate what they are supposed to be doing, which is to make sure that there is compliance with a court order, to make sure we have a constitutional performance.

That is what is said in Maricopa County, but it applies nationwide. Nothing in the bill limits this to one county. It applies nationwide.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of the memory and selfless service of Officer Gabriel Facio of the Apache Junction Police Department. His end of watch was June 8, 2025.

On the morning of June 2, 2025, Officer Facio and his fellow officers bravely responded to a road rage incident where a suspect had brandished a weapon, threatening motorists and nearby residents. Officers attempted to subdue the suspect with nonlethal tools, but the suspect opened fire, striking Officer Facio in the face.

He was rushed to the hospital in critical condition. Gabriel fought valiantly for 6 days, but on June 8, 2025, at just 46 years old, he succumbed to his injuries, surrounded by his family and his brothers and sisters in uniform.

His legacy lives on through his wife and two children, who were his greatest joy. His name is now engraved on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial right here in Washington, D.C., and his service was honored at the annual candlelight vigil.

His life stands as a reminder of the courage and commitment that define our law enforcement officers.

Officer Facio is the first Apache Junction police officer ever killed in the line of duty. His sacrifice will always be remembered.

We pray for his family and for the Apache Junction Police Department.

We thank Gabriel for his service to the people of Apache Junction and Arizona's Fifth District.

May God welcome him home.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1275, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 96) expressing support for law enforcement officers, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 96.

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

Mr. Speaker, we owe a great deal of gratitude to the men and women in law enforcement who make sacrifices every day. They miss dinners, holidays, parent-teacher conferences, sports games, performances, and celebrations with their families so that the rest of us can live safely. These brave officers are the thin blue line that stand between our communities and chaos.

For years, radical Democrats championed the defund the police movement, slashed police budgets, and demonized entire police departments while crimes skyrocketed. Murders, carjackings, and retail thefts surged. We also saw leftist rogue prosecutors utterly fail to enforce the laws and uphold their oath of office. They refused to prosecute entire categories of crime, implemented cashless bail, released violent offenders back into society, and the list goes on and on.

We have seen Democrats support sanctuary city policies and openly side with illegal immigrants over American citizens. Sanctuary jurisdictions proudly shield criminal aliens from Federal immigration authorities, regardless of the cost to the residents. Officials from these jurisdictions tie the hands of their very own police departments. We have seen time and again how these jurisdictions refuse to honor an ICE detainer, release a criminal alien back onto the streets, and then that alien commits another heinous crime. Almost one-third of the country lives in a sanctuary jurisdiction. That is roughly 100 million Americans.

Where these failed policies took hold, chaos followed. Thankfully, the Trump administration has restored law and order. Because of President Trump, the border is secure.

Because of President Trump, the homicide rate has declined an average of 21 percent in 35 major U.S. cities, reaching the lowest level recorded in over a century.

Because of President Trump, we have seen the lowest number of drug overdoses since 2019.

These historic results prove that when we enforce the law and prioritize prosecuting violent crime, American communities become safer for everyone. When law enforcement officers are empowered to do their jobs, American communities become safer for everyone. When politicians support the police instead of siding with radical activists, American communities become safer for everyone.

To every police officer watching today, America sees you. We thank you. We stand with you.

I urge my colleagues to support our brave men and women in law enforcement, reject policies that make Americans less safe, and support this resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, you know, when I hear the term ``national consensus,'' what seems to be national consensus is that the Democrats were the ones that promoted defund the police. I have here a list of cities who cut a total of $1.71 billion to promote police. They did that because they wanted to defund the police.

I hear that there is a consensus bill. The Democrats couldn't even get a unanimous vote on the bill we just voted on just an hour or so ago. I mean, it is just hokum. It is just flat out hokum.

Well, the national consensus is that Democrats are well-known to have supported the defund the police movement.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn), the sponsor of the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to think back on 2020 as being the measuring line that you are coming from because, when you remember, that is the year of George Floyd. That is the year of CHAZ, CHOP, and rioting, wholesale violence, the Portland courthouse under siege, and the defund police movement, even by some across the aisle in Congress.

What has happened since President Trump has come in? Violent crime rates have declined significantly in major cities across the United States. That is what this resolution says at one point. Let's get here.

Do they deny the drop? No, they don't deny the drop. They just don't like the fact that Donald Trump gets some credit for it. The TDS has been on display.

The numbers are clear. Why does falling crime under renewed law and order priorities threaten the worldview of Democrats? It shouldn't.

In Chicago, for instance, in 2025, homicides plunged 29 percent after Donald Trump was elected, from 587 in 2024 to 417 last year.

In Columbus, Ohio, in the same period, rapes dropped 39 percent, from 1,116 down to 678.

In Houston, ag assaults fell 17 percent, from 18,590 to 15,378.

Robberies in L.A. dropped 15.3 percent, from 8,593 to 7,278.

New York City recorded the fewest shooting victims and shooting incidents in its entire recorded history in 2025.

Democrats spent years telling us that backing the police, enforcing laws, and rejecting soft-on-crime nonsense wouldn't work, that it was racist, outdated, or somehow made things worse. Yet, the American people can see the results with their own eyes--safer streets, fewer victims. That is what is specifically stated in this resolution.

What don't they like about it? It mentions Donald J. Trump. It is that simple. They should be coming along with us.

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

Madam Speaker, I said last time I was prepared to close. I assumed that was his closing.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. Is the gentleman prepared to close?

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

We heard a lot about pardons. It is not mentioned at all in this resolution.

But it is real fun, you know, when you think about pardons, and I have got article after article here. There is a whole stack of them right here of the more than 3,000 people that President Biden pardoned, some massive fraudsters who never paid their restitution. Odd, isn't it?

Quite frankly, Joe Biden was going on a pardon-issuing spree to such an extent he even pardoned a few Members of Congress. How about that. That is pretty interesting to me.

Let's see. If you didn't know what was in this resolution, as most Americans don't and anybody watching, you would think this is all about how heinous of an individual Donald J. Trump, our President, is. You saw that TDS on display.

But I am going to do a favor for everybody. I am going to go over the 11 clauses in this resolution that honor police officers.

By the way, Democrats couldn't even get a unanimous vote when the resolution we just voted on listed fallen officers. They think we are creating partisanship with this. That is not the case.

Facts are stubborn things. They don't want to honor police. They were the party of defund the police.

Let's take a look at the clauses.

Number one: ``Whereas the brave men and women in law enforcement work tirelessly and relentlessly to safeguard the communities they are sworn to protect, serving as the backbone of public safety across our Nation.''

What do my colleagues on the other side find controversial here? What is it? Do they deny that officers work tirelessly? Do they deny that communities depend on them? Because if you can't even affirm this, your problem isn't with the resolution. It is with reality.

Number two: ``Whereas law enforcement officers bear the critical responsibility of upholding the rule of law and maintaining the safety, stability, and public order upon which our communities depend.''

What offends them, the rule of law part or the idea that safety and stability actually matter? They never touched on this.

Number three: ``Whereas law enforcement officers routinely and selflessly risk their own lives and safety to combat crime, remove dangerous and lethal drugs from our streets, and stand in defense of the most vulnerable among us.''

What is their objection? What is their objection? Do they think law enforcement don't risk their lives, that drugs aren't lethal or that the vulnerable don't deserve that shield? They

should tell the widows and orphans of fallen officers why this fact bothers them.

Number four: ``Whereas law enforcement officers strengthen our communities through outreach, mentorship, crisis response, and countless daily acts of service that frequently go unrecognized.''

Which of these acts of service do they reject? The mentorship? The crisis intervention?

Number five: ``Whereas from resolving neighborhood disputes to checking in on elderly residents and guiding youth programs, officers provide a quiet and steady presence that extends far beyond traditional law enforcement duties.''

Is it the neighborhood dispute resolution that you oppose or the very idea of a steady, positive police presence?

What is it that you oppose?

Number six: ``Whereas rhetoric and policies from leftist activists and progressive politicians seek to defund or dismantle local police departments, undermine public safety, and place both officers and the communities they serve at greater risk.''

I thought this was your goal. For years many of you and your allies championed it in the streets. You posted on official social media accounts. You introduced legislation and redirected budgets away from law enforcement. The defund the police movement wasn't some fever dream. It was your rallying cry.

Do you deny now that that rhetoric ever existed?

Do you deny that progressive politicians and leftist activists aggressively pushed these policies in cities across the country?

Do you deny the explosion in violent crime?

You can't spend years trying to kneecap, starve, and demonize the police and then act outraged when a resolution dares to call it what it was: a dangerous failure that hurt people.

Number seven: ``Whereas sanctuary city policies that restrict cooperation with Federal immigration authorities can compel local law enforcement agencies to divert already limited resources and actively encourage resentment toward local law enforcement.''

Again, I thought this was your goal. We have heard it loud and clear from dozens of your own politicians from Minnesota to Boston, California and beyond, people proudly declaring they will not cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement. They will shield the illegal aliens, even the worst of the worst: murderers, rapists, and gang members. They will keep them out on the streets rather than let ICE do its job.

Do they deny these sanctuary policies exist and deliberately restrict cooperation with Federal authorities?

Almost one-third of Americans live in sanctuary jurisdictions. You can't champion policies that protect criminals over cops and then act shocked when the resolution says sanctuary policies sabotage law enforcement at every level.

``Whereas the Trump administration's focus on restoring law and order has contributed to a notable decline in homicide rates, with levels reaching among the lowest recorded in over a century.''

Data is data, and facts are facts. A report by the Council on Criminal Justice says this: Homicides in 35 major cities declined by 21 percent from 2024 to 2025. Just in Washington, D.C., President Trump is protecting our citizens from failed progressive governance. We have seen incredible drops in violence. Homicides are down 52 percent. Sex abuse is down 48 percent, robbery is down 23 percent, and vehicle theft is down 56 percent. All crime overall is down 25 percent, and Washington, D.C., is on pace for roughly 42 murders this year, the lowest rates since at least 1930. Compare that to the 274 murders in 2023.

Number nine: ``Whereas drug overdose deaths in the United States have declined significantly, reaching their lowest levels since 2019.''

Which part of that is fake news to you? The decline? The significance? Or is it the timing as enforcement and border focus tighten?

Under Biden administration's catastrophic open-border policies, fentanyl poured across the southern border like never before, over 100,000 deaths, killing tens of thousands. That wasn't an accident. It was a predictable deadly result in prioritizing illegal immigration over American lives.

Now with the Trump administration's renewed focus on securing the border, cracking down on traffickers and backing law enforcement, the body count is falling. Lives are being saved. We are reversing that damage.

They should own their failure or at least get out of the way while we clean it up.

Number 11: ``Whereas law enforcement officers deserve our deepest respect, unwavering support, and profound gratitude.''

Let me ask my friends on the other side of the aisle: If you vote against this resolution, are you voting against gratitude for these men and women who deserve our grateful attitudes and thankfulness?

Explain it.

Mr. Speaker, he is out of order. He knows he is getting whipped, and that is why he is out of order.

Mr. Speaker, that is a perfect example of what happens when the Democrats cannot answer for their policies that have wrecked cities and demeaned police officers. They have to be rude and interrupt. They can't sit silent because they know that they are profoundly responsible for the results of their policies.

I want them to explain to every officer watching right now, explain to their families, and explain to their spouses who lost a partner and the parentless children and tell them why basic appreciation for the people who risk their lives is somehow too much to ask.

Tell them why they don't deserve respect. Tell them why they don't deserve support.

After everything, after your defund movement, you cheered. After the sanctuary policies you defended and you continue to defend, after the crime waves your ideology unleashed, and after watching this country bleed for years under your failed experiments of policies, you can't bring yourself to say a simple thank you.

Enough. The American people are done with your excuses. They are done watching you demonize the only people standing between them and anarchy.

We support our police. We will back the blue, and we will pass this resolution to send one unmistakable message: In America, law enforcement officers have friends, they have allies, and they have the unwavering gratitude of a grateful nation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to vote to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and celebrate Tim Reitz, the Executive Director for the House Freedom Caucus.

For the last four years, Tim has led our caucus of conservative members with all the patience, diligence, resolve, and commitment needed for success. He is steadfast in his principles and unwavering in the face of immense pressure to leave those principles behind.

He has stood by our side through some of our toughest battles-- electing a new Speaker of the House, fighting to bend down the federal spending curve, implementing President Trump's agenda, and even last week's effort to seek necessary reforms to FISA. Tim does not shy away from the fight. He is a happy warrior, determined to restore our Nation to the Founders' vision of freedom and limited government.

Before coming to HFC, Tim served two members of his home state of Georgia, Paul Brown and my good friend and former HFC member, Jody Hice.

But this week will be Tim's last in the House of Representatives as he embarks on a new adventure with the Conservative Partnership Institute. I have no doubt Tim will continue to be an asset to the conservative cause.

I am deeply grateful for his devoted service and wish him well in his new endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act.

Washington has ignored a simple fact that every Arizonan knows firsthand. Eighty percent of the air pollution in Maricopa County, Arizona's largest county, with a population of approximately 5.5 million people, is caused by natural phenomena or international transport.

Wildfire smoke from California, Canada, and Mexico, dust storms across the desert, and emissions drifting in from China and Mexico are all outside our control. Yet Arizona was penalized with stricter Federal mandates, threatening jobs and growth in one of the fastest growing regions in America.

That makes no sense because Arizona--and Maricopa County specifically--is home to economic and technological development that will better the lives of Arizonans and Americans nationwide.

From semiconductor manufacturing to aerospace and national defense facilities, Arizona is building the industries that keep America competitive.

These employers depend on fair, predictable permitting, not rules that punish us for pollution blowing in from another country.

Arizona's leaders have invested in real outreach and compliance tools that have cut controllable emissions by 50 percent since 2000, but no State should be forced to impose more regulations on families and small businesses for pollution that they did not cause nor can they remedy. That is exactly where the FENCES Act is necessary.

The FENCES Act restores the original intent of the Clean Air Act by making clear that all foreign emissions, natural or man-made, are excluded when EPA conducts air quality reviews.

Democrats would continue to penalize States like Arizona for these uncontrollable sources. Democrats want to continue to impose costly delays, Federal sanctions, and unnecessary burdens on manufacturers, communities, and States.

Earlier this year, President Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin recognized the impact of these onerous rules and stopped their negative effects in Maricopa County, but no State should have to rely on the unpredictability and capriciousness of any administration.

Congress must act so that no future EPA can arbitrarily punish Arizona or any State for emissions beyond our borders.

The FENCES Act is grounded in sound science and common sense. It protects jobs, supports investment, and ensures environmental rules focus on what States can actually control.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the FENCES Act. Let's pass it today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of my good friend, Michael Tennant.

For the last 14 years, Mike has served as chairman of the Sun Lakes Republican Club, an active East Valley community in my district. He is a true patriot.

Mike was born on November 25, 1949, in Orion, Illinois. He had a long career with International Harvester in Illinois and Wisconsin, but ultimately settled with his lovely wife, Sandy, in the great State of Arizona.

Mike's life wasn't without its challenges. While living in Wisconsin, he courageously battled leukemia and survived, thanks to a lifesaving bone marrow transplant from his brother.

Since retiring to Sun Lakes, Mike has dedicated his time to serving his community. He is well known as a grassroots activist for the conservative cause. I am also happy to see a smiling face at grassroots meetings, rallies with the President, get-out-the-vote efforts, and more.

I am truly grateful to Mike for following his call to service and to Sandy for supporting him. As Mike steps down as chairman after 14 years of dedicated leadership, I am honored to celebrate him here today and to call him a friend.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 139) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring a balanced budget for the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.J. Res. 139.

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

Mr. Speaker, today our national debt exceeds $38 trillion and grows second by second. On a per-person basis, the national debt amounts to $113,000 for every person living in the United States.

For generations, Congress has chosen to max out our national credit card and leave the bill to the next generation instead of having hard conversations about spending.

Families across our Nation have had these hard conversations, and they balance their budgets. The leaders of this Nation should do the same.

Americans know that debt comes with strings attached. Every dollar we spend beyond our means today is a dollar and change we must repay tomorrow. It is no different for government. The more America borrows, the more expensive every next borrowed dollar becomes.

Indeed, annual Federal spending on interest is now one of the largest line items we have. We spend more on interest than we do on Medicare. We spend more on interest than we do on national defense.

Republicans and Democrats may have different policy ideas and priorities, but surely we can all agree that a budget hamstrung by huge interest payments benefits nobody.

Our fiscal trajectory is alarming and unsustainable. Higher-than- expected interest rates or other challenges could trigger a debt spiral. It has happened to other countries throughout history.

Without changes, it will happen to us. The day of reckoning will come, and it will not be big and beautiful. It will be big and ugly.

There are two choices: spend a lot less on the future or spend a little less starting today. I choose the second option. That is why I support the balanced budget amendment. It is the only way to cement our commitment to long-term fiscal stability.

A 5-year path to balance will allow us to make prudent spending choices to gradually balance the budget and wean us from our reliance on deficit spending.

It is simple. The balanced budget amendment will restore fiscal sanity and take us off the path to an economic calamity.

But the balanced budget amendment will not merely beat back a future fiscal crisis. It will also reduce the cost of living here and now. The enormous Federal debt is currently driving up borrowing costs for all Americans. Mortgages, car payments, and student loans are all more expensive because of Congress' profligacy and irresponsibility.

We saw the disastrous effects of budget-busting deficit spending during the catastrophic 4 years of Biden-Harris rule. With the eager support of Democrats in Congress, the Biden-Harris administration approved $4.7 trillion in new deficit spending, ultimately racking up $8.5 trillion in new debt.

What did the average American get? The worst inflation in 40 years.

When Biden-Harris took over in January of 2021, inflation was just at 1.4 percent per annum. By the middle of the term, it exceeded 9 percent per annum.

Inflation is a tax on everyone, but we all know who it hurts the most: the poor, the working class, seniors on fixed incomes, and American families, who saw their expenses explode and their salaries stay flat.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, histrionics and misdirection won't cover the historical hypocrisy of the reckless spending of Democrats who now even choose to keep parts of the government shut down.

Under the Biden administration, the national debt grew by an unprecedented--unprecedented--$8.5 trillion.

By the way, this used to be a bipartisan issue. When the gentleman mentioned Bill Clinton, I think: Yeah, that is the last time everybody came together from both parties that actually produced a balanced budget.

The gentleman asks: Well, why don't Republicans do it now?

It is because we would like to invite the other side to do it with us. We would like to invite the other side to do it with us, but they don't want to do it with us.

In fact, the gentleman just basically announced that he would like to repeal the tax act and give us the largest tax increase in national history.

What did we get from the runaway spending of Joe Biden?

When Biden-Harris took over in January, inflation was at 1.4 percent. By the middle of the term it was over 9 percent. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will reduce debt to GDP, flip primary deficits into surpluses by 2034, and reduce the deficit by about $4.5 trillion relative to the policy baseline prior to enactment, all of this while averting the largest tax hike in American history that my colleague across the aisle basically just announced they are going to enact upon the American people if they become the majority.

Democrats have proposed radical bills that far exceed the alleged cost of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Let us see what they have done. The Green New Deal will cost $93 trillion over 10 years. That is theirs. Their Medicare for All proposal will cost $32 trillion over 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, forgive me if I think they are projecting a bit on this one here. The simple truth is a balanced budget amendment would hold both parties accountable.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I find that the argument that is presented by the gentleman from Maryland seems delusional at best--delusional at best.

This amendment doesn't target programs. It targets overspending. Congress must live within the revenue Americans already provide, and that is about $5.5 trillion a year. The two-thirds threshold applies to tax hikes, not program cuts. Receipts have been stable for decades. Spending is what is out of control. Spending is what is out of control, and they fail to acknowledge it.

What is delusional is for the Democrats to have the audacity to say that they are the party of fiscal responsibility when they are trying to impose the Green New Deal, $93 trillion over 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, during the gentleman from Texas' recent comments, so recently given, the national debt rose by $125,000. Just keep that in mind.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), my friend and chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will set the record straight on that history. It was very colorful but a little bit inaccurate. If you remember, it was the '96 budget that was balanced. It was balanced with all the Republicans and a plurality of Democrats. It would have been nice if it would have been unanimous, wouldn't it? It would have been nice, but we couldn't get there.

Perhaps all the rhetoric you have heard today is political partisanship. It is posturing from that side of the aisle over there and maybe some from us because it is a bipartisan problem.

I think the previous speaker just said what are the odds of us ever just doing it on our own. That is right. Hell froze over once about 30 years ago. Are we going to wait 30 years again until the structural deficit exceeds $5 trillion a year when we actually have a national debt that is somewhere north of $100 trillion?

We are not going to last that long. We need to do this now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder), my friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I think in one sense he is right on the money. Both parties can share in the blame of this massive, structural national debt we have, but I will point out that in 2001 when taxes were cut, something happened in 2001 which changed the trajectory of the entire Nation, and we are still dealing with the fallout.

You will remember it. We called that 9/11, right? Some things happened in 2001, which changed our spending. That is important to recall.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), my friend.

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

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

Madam Speaker, hyperbole and sophistry right here on the floor of the House from politicians, who would have thunk it? Really, who would have thunk it? I get a big kick out of that.

Do you know what the national debt was when Barack Obama became President? It was $8 trillion. Do you know what it was when he left? It was $20 trillion.

Do you know what the gentleman from Maryland did? He defended every wild-eyed, anticonstitutional program and every abuse of the First Amendment under the Biden administration. When you had reporters being castigated, investigated, and prosecuted, not a peep from him. Not a peep, but, boy golly, he is going to come up here and attack President Trump. That is what he is going to do, and then he has the audacity to talk about abasement--abasement of this body, and to say that we have absolute control over all three bodies.

I wish we did. That would mean that we had 60 Republican Senators in the Senate. Quite frankly, I have a major problem with that because that is a supermajoritarian body under the cloture rule. That wasn't contemplated by the Founders either. They thought it would be a simple majority.

The rationale for his argument is that James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wouldn't have said it, but do you know what? James Madison and Alexander Hamilton would have said that we are not going to have direct elections of Senators. They are going to be elected by their State legislature.

That rationale doesn't make sense in this argument. It is specious and weak. That is the rationale that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are throwing at us today.

The gentleman said that we have never needed a balanced budget amendment before. Perhaps he is correct, but we sure have a massive structural deficit today. We have a structural deficit because, even though we bring in a record amount--a record amount--of revenue, we keep spending more. This body doesn't have the political will.

That is the point that our side has been making. We don't have the political will, not on our side or the minority's side. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to turn this constantly into a partisan affair. I am saying that both sides have recklessly spent too much--both sides.

Madam Speaker, do you know who is punished by it? It is not us. It is not us. It is the American people. It is the American people who are taking the burden of feckless, blind spending and reckless spending.

Even if you get the record amount of revenue, this body is not going to make a concomitant amount of spending. It is going to spend more. It will always spend more. We will always spend more. Only if we have a balanced budget amendment, which, by the way, used to be a bipartisan issue.

It used to be a bipartisan issue on the national debt and deficit. Both parties' national security leaders used to say that that is our number one security threat. I mean for 25 years, a generation or more.

Madam Speaker, we don't hear that today from my colleagues. It is too bad. I wish we did. Man, I wish we did. I wish we could both say: Let's put this together. It is delusional. It is delusional. The fact of the matter is that what was spent during COVID--massive amounts, literally trillions of dollars--without any productive capacity to go with it fueled the Biden-era inflation, and we are dealing with that today.

Oddly enough, the inflation rate under President Trump is back down to almost what it was when he left. That is the reality.

How about my Democratic colleagues saying that we are going to put in the Green New Deal program. Remember that one? Yes. It was $93 trillion worth of spending with no pay-for over a 10-year period. It was $93 trillion.

Medicare for all, $33 trillion over a 10-year period, no pay-for.

Madam Speaker, do you know what the pay-for is? We are going to print more money. We are going to print more money, and do you know what that does? It devalues your currency. By the way, the valuation of currency is the classic definition of ``inflation'' because you can't buy as much with the same dollar. You are always going to need more.

People think that we have seen hyperinflation. We haven't seen hyperinflation. Do you know when we are going to see hyperinflation? We are going to see hyperinflation when the bond markets start saying: Guess what. You guys are effectively bankrupt, and we are not lending you any more money.

That is when the big calamity hits. When that hits, there won't be anybody here who can say that this is a partisan issue. Both parties will be at fault.

I pray to God that both sides here today will vote for this amendment. Get it to the people. Let the people actually impose upon us what 49 States have, and that is a requirement for a balanced budget. If we couldn't print our own money, we would have already collapsed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, nothing angers a law-abiding American more than being stolen from and then watching the system let the thief go to do it over and over again.

Our immigration system only works when people who come here follow our laws and want to build the American Dream, not strip it away from the very people who make this country work.

Right now that trust is broken. These are not small scams. They are organized, deliberate fraud schemes that target the most vulnerable among us: a single mother relying on food assistance or an elderly couple who spent a lifetime paying into Social Security, or a child whose identity is stolen before they can even speak.

Here is the part that makes no sense. Under current law, defrauding the U.S. or stealing taxpayer dollars is not explicitly a deportable offense. That loophole has allowed criminal fraud networks to operate for decades.

We have seen the consequences. In Minnesota, Somali fraud networks stole millions, and Federal prosecutors now estimate Medicaid fraud in that State alone could hit $9 billion. Even in my own home State of Arizona, fraud exceeds billions of dollars.

However, Minnesota isn't the outlier. It is the warning sign. A GAO report found nearly 3 million Social Security numbers with evidence of misuse. A Cuban national defrauded Medicare of more than $3 million through a fake medical equipment scheme. A 3-year-old child had her Social Security number used to take out credit cards and auto loans. These are not isolated cases.

Fraudsters can exploit SNAP, Social Security, Medicare, and other programs because the law does not clearly state that these crimes make an alien removable from the U.S. Litigation delays and loopholes let these offenders stay here and continue to harm Americans while their victims struggle to recover.

The Deporting Fraudsters Act of 2026 closes that gap, and it does it with simple, commonsense steps. It makes clear that any alien who defrauds the U.S. or steals government funds intended for American citizens is inadmissible and deportable. It ensures that an alien's own admission to committing fraud can trigger consequences because courts in multiple circuits have ruled that certain Social Security fraud offenses do not automatically carry immigration penalties. It bars these offenders from receiving immigration benefits, including asylum, so they cannot exploit our generosity twice.

This is not complicated. If a person comes to this country to build a life, then follow our laws and contribute. We will welcome that person. If a person comes here to steal from American taxpayers, that person doesn't get to stay.

Becoming an American is a privilege. It carries responsibilities, and when someone abuses that privilege by stealing from the very people who welcome them, then they forfeit the right to remain here.

This act is a commonsense reform that protects vulnerable Americans. I am proud and pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill.

Now I will just touch on the Biden pardons. Literally hundreds of millions of restitution dollars forgone. In fact, one individual, Paul Daugerdas, was sentenced to 15 years in prison for his role in a multibillion-dollar tax fraud scheme described by prosecutors as one of the largest criminal tax fraud cases in U.S. history.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why do I bring that up?

Mr. Speaker, it is because my friend across the aisle is obsessed with this Trump derangement syndrome that we hear about so much.

What about the 1,400 people who were pardoned in the last waning hours of the Biden administration?

Many of them were fraudsters. Hundreds of millions of dollars in restitution is forgone. I didn't hear any outrage from the gentleman over that, but there should be outrage when an illegal alien is committing fraud. This bill will help make them inadmissible and deportable.

That is what this bill is about. It is not some imaginary or delusional sophist argument that we are hearing from the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I don't mean to respond, but I am going to have to respond here. I am going to first include in the Record: ``Biden clemency for committed fraudsters met with outrage: `Slap in the face.' ''

[From FoxNews.com, Dec. 17, 2024]

Biden Clemency for Convicted Fraudsters met With Outrage: `Slap in the

Face'

(By Breanne Deppisch, Alec Schemmel)

President Biden made history last week when he granted

clemency to more than 1,500 people with a sweeping list of

commutations and pardons.

However, the move was met with fierce backlash from critics

pointing out various names on the clemency list included

individuals who cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars

through their fraudulent actions.

Among those covered in what the Biden White House is

calling the largest single-day act of clemency by a U.S.

president was Rita Crundwell, a former comptroller in Dixon,

Illinois. Crundwell was convicted and sentenced to nearly 20

years behind bars for

using her position to steal nearly $54 million from the small

town best known for the boyhood home of Ronald Reagan.

Also on the list was former New York law partner Paul M.

Daugerdas, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison for his

role in a multibillion-dollar tax fraud scheme described by

prosecutors as one of the largest criminal tax fraud cases in

U.S. history, as well as Toyosi Alatishe, who abused his

position as a caretaker for patients with severe mental

deficiencies and physical disabilities by using their

personal information to file fraudulent tax returns.

In response to Biden's decision to grant clemency to

Crundwell, Republican Illinois state Sen. Andrew Chesney

called the move ``nothing short of a slap in the face to the

people of Dixon.''

``Her crimes did not only affect the taxpayers of Dixon,

but they also had a rippling effect across the region and

state, as communities became subject to stricter, more

tedious regulations,'' Chesney said in a statement following

the commutation of Crundwell's sentence. ``First, it was the

pardoning of his son, and now Biden is apparently extending

clemency to anyone with political connections, including

corrupt government employees. It's sickening.''

Illinois Republican Rep. Darin LaHood echoed Chesney's

remarks about the commutation being a ``slap in the face'' to

those impacted by Crundwell's crime, adding that ``while many

families in Dixon were living paycheck to paycheck,

[Crundwell] took advantage of their trust in government and

used her access to live an unearned life of luxury.''

In addition to schemes that defrauded public funds, many of

the commutations Biden handed out went to white-collar

criminals accused of defrauding their clients out of millions

of dollars. Meanwhile, Biden also commuted the sentence of

Michael Conahan, a former judge who imposed harsh sentences

against juveniles in exchange for $2.8 million in illegal

payments in what became known as a ``kids for cash'' scandal.

``I want to see [Conahan's] name removed because that's

just . . . another slap in the face, another injustice, on

top of all of the grief that everybody in this community has

already endured,'' said Sandy Fonzo, whose son Edward

committed suicide after being sent to a juvenile detention

center for eight months after getting caught drinking

underage.

The administration commuted sentences for inmates who were

on home confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic and who

``have successfully reintegrated into their families and

communities,'' according to the announcement.

This includes verification that the person's primary or a

prior offense was not violent, a sex offense, or terrorism-

related; ensured a low or minimum recidivism risk; and

confirmed that the person was not engaged in violent or gang-

related activity while incarcerated. All were on good

behavior, and the decisions were not made on an individual

basis.

Between 2017 and 2021, then-President Trump granted just

143 pardons and 93 sentence commutations--amounting to just 2

percent of the clemency applications that his administration

received, according to available Justice Department data.

Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman would have us believe is that Rita Crundwell, who stole $54 million from Dixon, Illinois, repaid that $54 million before she received her pardon. That is what we would have to believe.

We would have to believe that Paul M. Daugerdas, sentenced to 15 years in prison for his role in a multibillion-dollar tax fraud scheme, one of the largest in history, had reimbursed the Federal Government for those multibillion dollars.

We would have to believe that Toyosi Alatishe, who abused his position as a caretaker for patients by filing fraudulent tax returns on behalf of these poor folks, paid everything back.

There is no indication of that from the Dixon, Illinois, folks. No indication at all.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have made my case.