Floor Statements

Madam Chair, Taiwan is a great friend of the United States, and it is a unique friend to Arizona.

The CCP uses every tool it can, including maps, to undermine truth and assert illegitimate claims over sovereign territory. Congress should not fund anything that supports the CCP's disinformation efforts, and now is the time for strategic clarity, with rising bellicosity coming from the CCP.

We cannot allow authoritarian regimes to dictate how our government communicates facts. If we truly stand for freedom, sovereignty, and truth, then we must also stand with Taiwan. This is one way to do so.

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Smith for yielding time to me today and also for a lifetime of work that he has put in to save the lives of so many unborn children.

Madam Speaker, today marks the third anniversary of one of the most consequential decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court in our Nation's history, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. That bill corrected a grave constitutional error and returned the power to protect life back to the States, where it has always belonged.

The decision reached in Roe v. Wade was never grounded in sound law. It was judicial activism masquerading as jurisprudence. That activism resulted in the death of more than 60 million innocent lives. That decision was a lie. It was fabricated out of thin air by activist judges who thought they knew better than the Constitution and the people.

Dobbs gave that power back to the people, back to the States. Since that ruling, we have seen States across the Nation step up and declare what the

left refuses to admit, which is that human life begins at conception and that every child has the right to be born.

They want taxpayer-funded abortion up to and including the moment of birth. Sadly, my own State has enshrined that in its own constitution.

The Dobbs decision represents a triumph of constitutional originalism and the sanctity of life, an incredible decision that has the potential to change the very trajectory of this Nation. It was the fruit of tireless prayer, relentless advocacy, and the courage of millions who refused to accept the culture of death.

One of those great leaders sits next to me now, Representative Christopher Smith.

Life should not be a partisan issue, and I know that we have a chance to actually rehabilitate this Nation. This is a key issue, and the Dobbs decision provides us the opportunity to be the final fulcrum of change here.

I thank God for the Supreme Court. I thank God for people like Chris Smith and the tireless millions of advocates over the years. I thank God for this country. May He bless this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory and selfless service of Officer Gabriel Facio of the Apache Junction Police Department: End of watch, June 8, 2025.

Gabriel was wounded in the line of duty on June 2, 2025, while attempting to apprehend a suspect who was brandishing a weapon and waving it at motorists and residents. Gabriel and his fellow officers bravely responded to the call and pursued the suspect further south.

After using all available means to bring in the suspect without incident, the commands were not obeyed, and the suspect could not be brought down with less lethal tools. The suspect fired his weapon at Gabriel and his fellow officers, who returned fire. Sadly, in the exchange, Gabriel was struck in the face before the suspect was hit and taken into custody.

Gabriel fought valiantly but could not overcome the wounds he sustained. Six days later, he passed away at only 46 years old, surrounded by his family and fellow officers.

We honor his sacrifice as the first Apache Junction police officer to be killed in the line of duty. He was beloved by his fellow officers and his dear family, with whom we mourn.

Gabriel, we pray for your family and brothers in blue. Your service and protection of the people of Apache Junction in Arizona's Fifth District will live on forever. Thank you, and may God welcome you home.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a moment of silence.

Mr. Speaker, the original Medicaid program was designed to help the disabled, pregnant women, seniors, and children.

Then there was this expansion that came along, and it is filled with able-bodied adults of working age who could be working. That is the fastest growing program in the United States today. They pay out about $100 billion a year in lost payments.

The Republicans want to deal with that. How we deal with it is an increase in funding over the next 10 years of 25 percent. We just heard somebody say we are going to gut it. Only in Washington, D.C., would someone say an increase in spending is a cut. That is the weirdness of this place, but this is the reality. These are the facts right here.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Cathi Herrod, who recently retired from the Center for Arizona Policy after serving 20 years as president.

Cathi dedicated her life's work to promoting and defending the sanctity of life, traditional marriage and families, and religious freedom.

She joined CAP in 1997, shortly after its founding, as legislative counsel. Upon retirement of CAP's founder, Len Munsil, in 2005, Cathi assumed the role of president and has since been a force for good at the Arizona Capitol.

Since CAP's founding, more than 200 pieces of CAP-supported legislation have been passed by the Arizona Legislature, including many that protect the unborn and pregnant mothers.

Cathi has received numerous awards and distinctions for her work. She was recognized by Arizona newspapers as one of the 10 most influential leaders at the Arizona Capitol. She received the Family Champion award from Focus on the Family and received the William Wilberforce Award from Students for Life of America.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the work of dedicated individuals like Cathi who relentlessly strive to promote policies that protect the dignity of every Arizonan. I wish Cathi well in her much-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you something. In Arizona, we have two kinds of ballots. We are the only State that does, and we are really unique in this way. It is a result of a Federal case.

You have State ballots, which require you to prove citizenship to vote on, but not so on Federal ballots. That means to vote for Members of Congress, U.S. Senators, and the President of the United States, you do not have to show citizenship. You don't have to show identification.

The SAVE Act is required if we are going to have election integrity.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for that. It will make the Federal law in Arizona correspond to the State law. That will help Arizona's election integrity.

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 the topic of this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be here tonight with my colleagues who are also members of the Border Security Caucus.

For 4 years, we have stood here and exposed the open-border policies of the Biden-Harris administration. For 4 years, we have seen what happens when the America First border security policies that President Trump had put in place were thrown out.

In just over 1 month, we have seen what happens when those policies are put back in place. Since President Trump took office, ICE agents have arrested more than 20,000 illegal aliens. That is just in 1 month. By comparison, Joe Biden only had 33,000 at-large arrests for the entire year of 2024.

When Joe Biden was in charge, over 300,000 illegal aliens crossed the border in just 1 month. In President Trump's first month, illegal crossings did not even reach 10,000. The actual number was 8,400.

Whereas Biden let all those people into the country without proper vetting, some of which were known criminals and terrorists that we are now trying to find, under President Trump, people who illegally crossed the border are stopped and immediately detained or removed.

Due to President Biden's catch and release policies, every State had the pathologies of a border State. Immediately after taking office, President Trump charged ICE officers with cleaning up streets across the country by detaining the illegal aliens that Joe Biden had released into the country.

While they were attempting to prosecute President Trump for bogus charges in multiple jurisdictions, the Biden regime was releasing actual criminals into every city in America.

Tonight, we are going to be exposing the Biden-Harris administration's open-border policies and President Trump's work to remove them. We will highlight the tireless work of ICE agents tasked with arresting some of the worst individuals who have invaded our country.

Despite being demonized by the mainstream media and organized campaigns to interfere with and prevent arrests, including by exposing personal information of agents, in just 1 month, those agents have taken thousands of violent and malevolent offenders off of our streets. In just 1 month, President Trump has put an end to the endless invasion of our communities by illegal aliens.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin), my co- chairman of the Border Security Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman who has seen in his own district time and time again the abuse caused by these out- of-control illegal aliens.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany), my friend who is also on the Border Security Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his willingness. We have been to the border together. As has everyone else speaking tonight, I think we have all been except for Mr. Gill who I have got to get down there. It is always fun.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I will always remember him going off with Art Del Cueto and leaving the rest of us in a car, stuck in the dirt and with a bad tire, as we were down on the border. It is good to see that he made it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, who is also a member of the Border Security Caucus, for being with us tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gill). Texas is another border State, and Mr. Gill is a newcomer who is setting the world on fire.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his passion. He is right. We do need to codify President Trump's policies because we cannot go back to the period of time like we just experienced under the Biden regime.

Mr. Speaker, the Trump policies are a product of understanding what needs to happen. The mere fact that Donald Trump was elected almost immediately terminated the onslaught of people crossing our border.

Let me give an example. When I was meeting with the new border patrol chief, Chief Banks, I asked him what is going on. He said: Andy, three caravans turned back yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, that is what happens when you enforce the law. People were going to break the law. They stopped breaking the law. When I was down at the border just a few weeks back, I wanted to compare. I went to a place where I knew we had a regular flow of illegal aliens crossing the border. It was eerily quiet when I was there. The only thing that we saw and noticed on the southern side of the border were the watchers and the scouts. All of a sudden, they saw us. They came out. They were watching and observing us.

Let's talk about some of the people that have come in under the Biden administration's terrible and dangerous anti-American policy. First is Eduardo Domingo Renoj-Matul; some call him Turko. In the sanctuary city of Los Angeles, Federal agents arrested Eduardo Domingo Renoj-Matul, also known as Turko, who is charged with running one of the largest human smuggling organizations in the country. It spanned 5 years, and he smuggled in around 20,000 illegal aliens, largely between Los Angeles and Phoenix. Just so you know, the last number was about $10,000 per person that he was smuggling.

A codefendant of his was also charged with threatening to behead a Homeland Security Investigations agent and his family while authorities were conducting a search of his home.

Charges against him and his codefendant include hostage taking, transporting aliens into the U.S., and transporting aliens for private financial gain, resulting in death.

Illegal aliens were charged in some instances more than $15,000 for transportation. If they couldn't make the payment, they were held as hostages in stash houses in Los Angeles and Phoenix.

Let's take a look at someone else. Let's see if we can find Wilmer Yovani Fuentes-Benitez. On February 2, ICE officers in Philadelphia arrested Honduran national Wilmer Yovani Fuentes-Benitez who was previously deported three times. This time he was also arrested for resisting arrest and battery of a police officer.

These are the people that my friends across the aisle say should be allowed to remain here in these sanctuary cities.

ICE agents in Omaha arrested a member of Tren de Aragua who had spent 7 years in a Venezuelan prison for robbery, resisting arrest, and unlawfully discharging a firearm.

ICE agents arrested Fernando Hernandez-Martinez for two counts of child molestation.

We have another poster. This is Jose Roberto Rodriguez-Urbina. On January 22, ICE agents arrested El Salvadoran national Jose Roberto Rodriguez-Urbina who was wanted in his home country on extortion charges. This is what happens when an administration does not properly vet people they let into the country.

Criminal fugitives see the U.S. as a safe haven from justice, and they abuse the parole statute. They literally granted parole to millions of people when the very purpose of parole never saw more than 25 or so people admitted into the country under parole but not under the Biden administration.

In Saint Paul, Minnesota, another individual was arrested by ICE agents, Victor Covarrubias-Ozuna, for sexually assaulting a child.

Here is another one. In San Francisco, California, ICE agents arrested Erwin Davila-Galvan for lewd acts with a minor.

We have another poster. On January 27, ICE agents in San Diego arrested an Afghani who had an existing removal order and was a known or suspected terrorist. Despite having a removal order, the Biden- Harris administration and Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas could not be bothered to deport this suspected terrorist. He was roaming our streets and had to be captured by ICE agents.

We have another individual. On February 5, ICE officers in Harris County, Texas, arrested Mexican national David Gonzalez-Martinez for aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury. Gonzalez has illegally entered the country at least four times and was removed from the U.S. in 2001, 2008, and 2015. He was previously convicted of voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault with a weapon, drug possession, and illegal reentry.

On January 27, ICE agents in Brockton, Massachusetts, arrested Guatemalan national Edilio Agustin-Orellana. Agustin is charged with five counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, three counts of kidnapping, and armed home invasion. He has a record with ICE going back as far as 2002 when he was first arrested for illegally entering the United States.

These are the types of individuals that are currently being arrested by ICE under the leadership of Tom Homan. These are the types of individuals that are being protected by sanctuary cities.

When we recently had a hearing, we had the mayors of four of these sanctuary cities come in. All of them said: We cooperate with ICE. We don't keep people from being deported or we don't stop handing them over. But they do; they release them in the parking lot.

Let me read you the statutes that they are violating. Here is one. 8 U.S.C. 1373(a) states: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, state, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.'' You cannot do it. There is not even a culpable mental state required. You simply can't restrict it.

The sanctuary cities are preventing ICE and the immigration officials from getting this information. There is this one. This is 8 U.S.C. 1324(c). It states: ``In conducting investigations and hearings . . . immigration officers and administrative law judges shall have reasonable access to examine evidence of any person or entity being investigated . . .''

When the sanctuary city mayors say you can't cooperate with ICE, they are violating this statute. They have criminal culpability. Also you will see again there is no culpable mental state. There is no requirement that they intentionally or willfully knowingly do it. It is a per se statute. They are violating this. They have criminal culpability.

The sanctuary cities also have culpability on this. ``Any person who knowing''--now you have a culpable mental

state--that a ``Any person who knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection such alien in any place. . . . shall for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs, be fined, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.''

You have to understand something. What you have here is you have mayors telling their police chiefs and their officers don't hand these people over. Don't hand them over. There is no distinction between civil or criminal. When they do that they know that they are concealing. That is a criminal sentence up to 10 years. They are violating the law. They need to be prosecuted.

I am calling on Pam Bondi, the new Attorney General, and I am also calling on Mr. Homan to make that happen.

Mr. Speaker, I tip my hat to President Trump. What he has done just by enforcing the law has actually secured most of our border.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 122, I call up the bill (H.R. 77) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ``midnight rules'', 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 to insert extraneous material on H.R. 77.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 77, the Midnight Rules Relief Act. This piece of legislation will allow Congress to efficiently oversee Federal agency rulemaking.

Under the Congressional Review Act, known as the CRA, executive agencies must report all promulgated rules to both Chambers of Congress. The CRA gives Congress, then, the authority to pass joint resolutions to prevent agency rules from taking effect. The CRA's disapproval mechanism gives Congress a check on Federal administrative overreach.

Currently, the CRA forces Congress to introduce a separate joint resolution for each agency rule it seeks to review. This limit slows Congress' oversight of agency rulemaking.

Its inefficiency is most clear during the midnight rulemaking period of the last year of a President's term, when executive agencies historically issue more regulations than any other time in a President's term.

The 119th Congress can examine Biden administration rules that fall within the CRA lookback window. This window includes any rule submitted to Congress from August 16, 2024, to the end of the Biden administration.

During that period, the Biden administration finalized a staggering 1,406 rules.

H.R. 77 would make Congress' oversight more efficient during this midnight rulemaking period.

The Midnight Rules Relief Act would allow Congress to introduce joint resolutions considering multiple agency rules during the final year of a President's term.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may claim that this bill is only an attempt to slow down agency rulemaking, but that is incorrect. There are no provisions in this bill that are designed to slow down rulemaking.

Rather, this bill would merely allow Congress to more efficiently exercise the oversight authority it already has and respond to the influx of agency regulations during the midnight hours of the President's final term.

My colleagues would also like Americans to believe that this is an effort to repeal every regulation submitted to Congress. Again, that is inaccurate. After reviewing submitted regulations, Congress can pick and choose which rules to overturn, just as we do now.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the good humor that came from the other side of the aisle. It had me in stitches.

I don't really believe that the gentleman was chasing me around because he wanted to sign on as a cosponsor of my single-subject rule. He knows where to find me. I am in the committees with him. He could have done it. He didn't do it.

What I do find is this is a problem for me because I had the Democratic debate bingo card going, and I was feeling pretty good because he did mention ``Elon Musk'' five times. He mentioned ``billionaire'' three times and ``unelected billionaire'' one time. I had those on my card.

Words I didn't have include ``Muskovite,'' and I should have had that because he used that in Judiciary Committee earlier today. I also didn't have ``flood the zone,'' and I also didn't have ``gobstopped.'' I missed those on the bingo card for today.

I do find really intriguing his attempts to try to distract us from what this bill does.

The last thing I will say here before I yield to my friend from California is that the gentleman from Maryland mentioned omnibus bills, these omnibus bills that have everything in them, and he called them moronic. No doubt, I agree with him. The Inflation Reduction Act was moronic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley).

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle have mentioned several rules that Democrats particularly favor: bank fee regulation, maybe something about lead pipe regulation, and drinking water regulation. These aren't legislation. These are regulations.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say: If you are afraid to vote on them, you are going to stick them in this midnight rules reversion.

This is what I would submit: When all legislative authority is delegated to the bureaucratic agencies--Elon Musk isn't the fourth branch of government. He is not. Scholars have said and written for 30 years about the administrative state effectively being the fourth branch of government.

When my colleagues look at what scholars have said about that and are delegating that, my Democratic colleagues should just fess up and say: We are afraid. We are afraid to put the CFPB bill on the floor that would reduce the fees. We are afraid of doing that because we might be held responsible by our constituents.

That is what the minority is claiming that we want. In reality, Democrats would rather have nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats govern this country. That is what my Democratic colleagues want.

Mr. Speaker, when one looks at that, I find myself saying: If Democrats want to preserve the separation of powers, it may be gone, but we can actually reinstitute it. It is not three coequal branches of government. That is not what the Founders intended.

The Founders are very clear in the Constitutional Convention that Article I, that branch, which happens to be this branch, was meant to be the most powerful, and why? It was closest to the people.

Why was that important? They wanted this group of people to be actually bound to the people, be closest to the people.

When Members do what the Democrats want to do, which is to actually

delegate it over to the executive branch and to the bureaucracies, off to la-la land, and not really having an effective way to review it, that is what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would prefer because it makes this body less accountable. Heaven knows, Democrats don't want to necessarily be accountable.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats argue that the Midnight Rules Relief Act does not allow for sufficient debate. That is one of the things we have heard here, but the purpose of the Midnight Rules Relief Act is to increase Congress' opportunity to consider and debate rules.

Since there was an influx of rules at the midnight hour, the last few months of a President's term, which my colleague from New York just mentioned, calling it, I believe, the Biden regulatory agenda, that is what it is. It is the Biden regulatory agenda. It is not the Democrat's elected official agenda, nor the Republicans. It is not these elected officials' agenda. It is not even President Biden's agenda, except for it has been done by a regulatory agency. My Democratic colleagues like that over there.

Congress becomes overwhelmed when we have 1,400 or 1,500 of those rules in the last few months. When Congress is overwhelmed like that, it means that many agency rules are left unreviewed altogether by Congress. It is not just some, but most. It is the vast majority, without a single second or an iota of debate by the elected officials.

America is being governed by unelected bureaucrats. That is who is governing America. The Midnight Rules Relief Act increases the opportunity for Congress to debate agency rules by allowing Congress to consider more than one rule at a time.

This allows agency rules, that would not otherwise receive any debate, to be debated in Congress. Take back the unelected bureaucrats' authority and put it in the hands of the people who have been elected.

Why is that important? We are meant to be accountable to the people. The reason that the House had the purse strings added to it is because we were closest to the people. We are meant to be more accountable to the people.

Prior to the 17th Amendment, the States had their authority and their rights preserved and protected by the U.S. Senate, but now the U.S. Senate is just a bunch of glorified national politicians.

What I would suggest is, if Congress wants to take back the legislative authority and actually have people who are accountable, then the Midnight Rules Relief Act needs to be passed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not have junior Muskovite on the bingo card. I do find it interesting that the gentleman would be commenting on Ronald Reagan's current condition and his state of repose because I think he probably doesn't understand Ronald Reagan's philosophy at all.

Let's talk about what might be good if regulations are bundled together. Let's just consider a couple of things.

The need for the Midnight Rules Relief Act is most clearly seen in the wave of regulations issued by the prior administration in the eleventh hour of their administration. In the last few months, the Biden administration issued a staggering total of more than 1,400 final rules.

Here are two that might be single subject. Let's think about it. Would Democrats be okay if the Biden energy final rule of December 2024 was included, which effectively banned gas-powered water heaters in homes, which would increase their price by hundreds of dollars?

I wonder if my Democratic colleagues would be comfortable with sticking that with another Biden energy regulation issued in the same month, December of 2024, after he had already lost the election, that forces appliance manufacturers to comply with onerous rules that slow down the washing times for dishwashers from an hour or less to more than 2 hours?

One wonders. Those sound like they might be single-subject bills.

Moreover, there is nothing in here that mandates that we just bind everything together. The minority knows this doesn't require everything to be stuck together.

My Democratic colleagues know that they can be analyzed and bound together, as they can currently, except that they can't currently, can they?

I just picked two rules out of the air. Those two rules right there would require two separate bills. They would require two separate bills. Democrats don't want that.

Last October, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a final rule that dramatically raised the cost of repairing commercial and residential air-conditioning units. Maybe all three of those could go together in the same bill, but that can't be done under the current rule. That can't be done under the current law. We couldn't do it.

You would be stuck and you are going through the process, and believe me when I say I feel like we are going as slow as molasses here. My leadership would say that I complain about it all the time. We are taking next week off. Maybe Democrats would be comfortable if we were working next week and we were going to go through maybe 150 of these rules.

Maybe that would make you happy. What I will tell you is that the Midnight Rules Relief Act would allow Congress to consider and disapprove or accept all three of these burdensome regulations at one time. That makes us more responsive, and it makes us more able to process and oversee these regulators, these bureaucrats.

I find it intriguing. Elon Musk got mentioned again. He has replaced Trump. There is no longer TDS. Now, it is Elon Musk derangement syndrome because he has got to mention that on everything.

Here is the way it works. They want to say Elon Musk is looking at regulations and stuff like that, but we have an Oversight Committee. We do. We have an Oversight Committee, and we are busy conducting oversight.

It sure would be nice if the Oversight Committee could put some of these bills together as we consider these rules. However, when you have 1,400 rules, it doesn't matter how many oversight committees you have, you are going to have a tough time getting them done in a 2-year period. That is just the way it is.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, surely, it must have snowed in Arizona last night. I thought I heard the gentleman agree with Steve Bannon. Hell must have frozen over is all I can say.

Now, here is the deal. We just heard the gentlewoman talk about how this bill would strip away robust debate. No, it won't. It won't do that. You can debate these regulations under this provision. There will be debate.

The same rules remain in place, but what she actually aggrandized and what the gentleman has been aggrandizing all day is bureaucratic control of regulatory schemes. That is what they are promoting. They want the bureaucrats to control with us not having adequate opportunity to review those.

When you have an administration like the Biden administration as well as the administrations of Clinton, Obama, and Bush, they all increased in their last 6 months by two-and-a-half times the number of regulations that they issued. Those end up staying in place because there is not capacity under the current law to review those regulations and actually debate them.

My bill actually does the opposite of what they are suggesting. It actually brings us in as Members of Congress to review, debate, discuss, and decide if we want to accept or reject those bureaucratic rules.

For the other aspect of this, before I reserve again, I will just say this: If you like those regulations, then why don't you put them in a piece of legislation and promote them yourself?

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when I consider everything that was just said and what a travesty this bill is and how hardened and offensive this bill is, I find it intriguing.

Just like I am not sure I can accept that he was chasing me down because he wanted to sign on to my single-subject bill, I am not sure that his math is right on the 10 seconds to discuss and debate each bill.

No. You had your 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is, this bill has the potential to bring back into control and authority the legislative power that has been so wrongfully and wholly without oversight delegated to these agencies that are out there.

It has resulted, under Democrat and Republican administrations, in regulations that impact every aspect of every Americans' life, and they have been put together by unelected bureaucrats.

There is a reason that people said we have had enough of it. That is one of the things that President Trump campaigned on. My colleagues across the aisle don't want to accept that, but the bottom line is this: The meddling that goes on in every aspect of your life they want to control whether you can have a gas heater in your home. They don't want that, but by golly they are going to pass an omnibus bill that spends trillions of dollars and then they are going to complain because we are bundling a few regulations together.

There is no requirement that you bundle every regulation together. There is no requirement that you bundle all of them together. There is no requirement that you bundle two together.

This bill merely allows that to take place. I have mentioned several of what those rules may be that would actually be within the same subject even, but the bottom line is this: If we don't do it, the bureaucrats are going to continue to run this place. They are going to run the country, and the American people will have no recourse.

This gives them recourse. We are the ones who are elected, not the bureaucrats. If you want the $5 CFPB rule, then go ahead and introduce it. Don't complain to me, oh, gosh, your Speaker won't let it in. Yeah. I know how that goes. I have been here when there has been a Democrat Speaker. You know what? The pendulum swings back and forth, but what shouldn't swing back and forth is legislative authority.

We are the preeminent, predominant power amongst the separation of powers, the three branches of government, and there should not be four. Now, scholars will tell you there is a fourth. It is the administrative state. This curbs the administrative state. That is why this is so important.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I do find it really interesting that, if Members follow the logic of those who oppose this bill, what Democrats are suggesting is that, for the 1,406 rules that the Biden administration passed since August, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want us to do one bill for every one of them.

Let's do one bill for every one of them. We could. We could do that. I am happy to work. If that is what Democrats want to do, let's do it. We can come back next week. I am happy to

work every Saturday and Sunday. That is our job.

The minority doesn't really mean it. Mr. Speaker, Democrats don't really mean it because the reality is that, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle meant it, then my Democratic colleagues wouldn't stack 50 bills into one at a time when the minority does their omnibus spending packages the way House Democrats always do.

That is really interesting. The value to our economy and the budget of the rules that were implemented by the Biden administration, those 1,400, this isn't Andy Biggs talking. This isn't some outside group. Democrats claim it is Project 2025. This isn't those guys.

It is not any of those folks that said that the cost to the economy and the budget is $1.34 trillion. No. That was the Biden administration's own admission. That is what the imposition of their rules would cost, and we would love to get at that.

Democrats want us to do 1,400 separate bills. That way, none of their suspension bills where they are naming the post offices after their friends are going to get named. That is just what will happen. There won't be enough time.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is this: Democrats don't want us to consider the rules of the outgoing administration because we are going to see some absurdities when we do.

How about the heat rule? How about the heat rule? Up in the New England States, they might get 10 days a year where the high temperature is over 86 degrees.

Mr. Speaker, let's consider Arizona, where I am from. Do Members know how many days are above 86 degrees when people are working outside? It is about 300 days a year.

Democrats want the rule, set up by some person in a little cubicle-- if they even came into work, they might be working from home--to put a nationwide rule in place so that Phoenix, Arizona, basically is knocked out of being able to actually work and make it meaningful because we have 300 days a year above 86 degrees.

That is their heat standard. That is the rule.

Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues look into some of their antipollution stuff, guess what? Guess what the number one particulate is for just under 6 million people in Phoenix, Arizona, which is in Maricopa County. It is desert dust.

The EPA says to us: Hey, what you need to do is use water. You need to water that stuff down.

Guess what? The EPA also says that Maricopa County has a water problem.

Those are the kind of rules that my Democratic colleagues don't want talked about because what the minority wants to do is, if that rule is in place and you throw in the the 86-degree heat rule, Maricopa County, a big red county that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't like, effectively would be shut down economically from economic growth and expansion and population-wise. That is why the rules need to be reviewed.

Democrats say: Let's review them one at a time. My Democratic colleagues don't want to review them one at a time because this bill does not prevent reviewing them one at a time. It doesn't prevent that.

It can still be done, but it makes it more efficient because guess what? We have about 1,400 rules, and maybe 6 of them were worth a tinker's damn, and it means the rest of them have to be reviewed. The only way they can be reviewed and debated is to aggregate them into different subsets.

That is what this rule allows. That is why it is important, and it is important for the American people to understand that that administration imposed about $1.35 trillion worth of rules on them in the last year alone.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, neither the United States nor Israel recognize the legitimacy of the ICC. We are not members. The ICC has no authority to violate the sovereignty of either of those nations.

This bill is essential for protecting American citizens, servicemembers, our allies, especially Israel, from these politically motivated, punitive prosecutions by the ICC.

Israel and its leaders have an inherent right to defend themselves against these terrorist attacks that occurred from Hamas, and they get to also attempt to rescue these hostages, but the ICC's attempts to interfere with Israel's self-defense and issue arrest warrants for the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, and their minister of defense, undermines justice.

As the only Member of Congress who actually attended the Rome Conference that formulated the ICC document in the summer of 1998, I can attest that the ICC is hopelessly biased and is illegitimate. It claims authority it does not have. It attempts to claim jurisdiction and issue sanctions against Israel as we could have predicted, and many of us did who were at that conference watching this ICC form.

The ICC is an institution without a mandate from the international community, and the ICC must understand that the United States will not allow its overreach to harm U.S. citizens or our allies.

Mr. Speaker, again, our hearts go out to the Laken Riley family. We think about them. This bill is named for Laken Riley, but it has an impact far greater.

Once again, we must acknowledge that we can no longer take the famed empty words of sympathy from those across the aisle in the Biden-Harris administration because they refuse to do anything meaningful to stop the carnage or even slow down the border surge that has been going on.

Illegal aliens who commit crimes must not be released into our communities. Our colleagues cannot even use the term of art that is in the statute: ``illegal alien.'' They cannot even use that. They conflate legal immigration with those who enter our country illegally. They call them undocumented immigrants. That is what they do.

They don't ever stand up for the American people. Instead of taking the mandate of an overwhelming popular vote victory and electoral college victory by this incoming President Donald Trump on the issue of border security, they let it go. They ignore it.

In fact, places like San Diego--you know what San Diego just did? They declared themselves a super sanctuary city. Nobody is going to be held for ICE.

You get to explain to the victim of Nicholas Jose Francisco, a 25- year-old illegal alien from Guatemala, charged with molesting and raping a 5-year-old little girl. In New York City, there is more than 58,000 illegal aliens with a criminal record who have been charged with a crime on their streets.

You get to explain and apologize to the victim of the 31-year-old illegal alien from Mexico who was recently arrested for breaking into a woman's home and raping her. This goes on and on because my colleagues don't want to hold these people in detention.

Mr. Speaker, you get to explain to the victim of the 28-year-old illegal alien who tortured and burglarized a Dallas woman just a month or two ago.

You can stand up and say we are not bringing meaningful legislation. You can stand up and say that you feel real bad for Laken Riley and her family. How about all the other victims of illegal aliens who have committed crimes? You know the first thing they did that was illegal? They entered our country. Democrats want to protect them. Republicans want the law enforced.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate my friend, Art Del Cueto, who is retiring from the U.S. Border Patrol after more than 20 years of service.

Art's life and career have shaped his views and understanding of the dynamics of the southern border. He grew up in Douglas, Arizona, directly across the border from Agua Prieta, Sonora, and freely shares stories of how different the border was in the days of his youth.

For the last 20 years, he has patrolled in the Tucson sector, which is consistently one of the busiest sectors in the country.

Art has made it his mission to ensure every American can understand the need for border security and is a prolific commentator in the news and hosts ``The Green Line'' podcast, bringing the truths of the border straight to the listeners.

Art is one of the most knowledgeable people on the Arizona border. He has hosted President Trump, Vice President-elect Vance, incoming border czar Tom Homan, and dozens of Members of Congress.

There are countless stories I could share from these trips, such as watching an alien shimmy over the border wall to be promptly apprehended by Border Patrol, meeting coyotes waiting on the Mexican side for the opportunity to cross alien groups, discovering a group of young women and children left alone in the desert by their smugglers and simply told by the coyotes to wait for Border Patrol.

Mr. Speaker, these examples are only a small fraction of what Art has seen over the course of his career. He is a great friend to me and a true American patriot. I am grateful to know him and honored to share his story here with you today. I wish him the best as he moves into the next chapter of his life.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1616, I call up the bill (H.R. 115) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ``midnight rules'', 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.R. 115, the Midnight Rules Relief Act.

This is an important piece of legislation that will allow Congress to more effectively and efficiently oversee Federal agency rulemaking.

Under the Congressional Review Act, known as the CRA, executive agencies must report all promulgated rules to both Chambers of Congress. This reporting requirement allows Congress to properly consider Federal regulations before they take effect. The CRA gives Congress the ability to pass a joint resolution to prevent an agency's rule from taking effect.

The CRA's disapproval mechanism gives Congress a critical check on Federal administrative overreach. Currently, however, the CRA forces Congress to introduce a single, separate joint resolution for each agency rule it seeks to render unenforceable. This one-by-one limited joint resolution under the CRA slows Congress' oversight of agency rulemaking.

Its inefficiency is most clear during the midnight rulemaking period of the last year of a President's term, when executive agencies historically issue substantially more regulations that last year of a President's term.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 115 would make Congress' oversight more efficient during this midnight rulemaking period by allowing Congress to introduce joint resolutions covering multiple agency rules during the final year of a President's term.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may claim that this bill is only an attempt to slow down agency rulemaking or disincentivize Federal agencies from issuing rules on important issues, but that is incorrect. There are no provisions in this bill designed to slow down rulemaking. Rather, this bill would merely allow Congress to more efficiently exercise the oversight authority it already has and respond to the influx in agency regulations during the midnight hours of a President's term.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

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

Let's just address the previous speaker first of all. We already have a 60-day legislative lookback in the law. We are not changing that. That is apparently an objection that my colleague had.

We already have in the law that a substantially similar rule cannot be introduced if the Congress says no-go on it. Apparently, that is what my colleague's beef is. That is already the law.

What we are allowing now is for Congress to actually look at more than just a piece-by-piece, one here, one there, maybe you get a dozen to 18. You really don't ever get much more than that in a congressional lookback in the CRA.

Let's review what the Biden administration has done. The rules that they have promulgated in the last year alone have an economic impact of $1.4 trillion on the economy. There are individual bills in this packet here. This is just for the last little bit, the lookback period. There are 68, and that is with 30 days to go. There are 68 of them in here that I am holding up.

One of my favorites is the $45 billion boondoggle that they have got here. It is a rule, and $45 billion is the impact on that one. Let me see if I can read it. It is the national primary drinking water regulation for lead.

Here is the deal: It doesn't get looked at under the Democrats' concerns, but it does under ours. Why do you need to look at it? It just seems to be common sense that if you are going to have a $45 billion rule, maybe we ought to get to look at that.

We are going to come together to actually be able to effectively and efficiently put together these rules in a package. They are going to be marked up. They are going to be heard. If we think that it is justified, we get a chance to vote on it. Members can make their amendments to it. They can do everything else that we can have in the process, but the current methods that we are doing right now slow this down so much that we effectively review just a handful of rules, literally, of the dozens and dozens and hundreds of rules. Like I say, there have been 68 in the last little bit here that this administration put through.

When my colleagues across the aisle start talking about this rule or that rule, I challenge them to go through here and tell me how many of these rules they have even looked at. Are they aware of what is even in these rules? Are they aware of how much they are going to cost? Are they aware of the impact that it has on the working individual or an industry or the American people as a whole? No, they don't have that.

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we pass this bill. I am going to leave it there. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I first got to Congress, I was sitting in the Senator from Utah Mike Lee's office, and I said, hey, I don't understand this. You have got a stack on your desk here of about 4 inches, and yet you have a 13-foot tall stack of documents right next to it. What does that symbolize?

He said, the 4 inches are the total number of laws passed by Congress in the last year. The 13 feet is the total number of rules and regulations promulgated by administrative agencies. That is what we are facing.

When my colleague says, hey, we can look at 25--do you know what the high recently has been? It has been 17 in a year, 17 individual ones. Guess what? My bill doesn't say you can't look at these. In fact, it does the opposite. It encourages us to look at the rules. If they are good, they will stand. If they are not good, they will fail. That is what Congress is supposed to do. Another colleague would say, we are trying to expand Congress' power.

No. The Founders were clear. In the Constitutional Convention it isn't three separate coequal branches. It is three separate but unequal branches.

The legislative branch is supposed to be the most powerful. That is why it got funding. That is why the House is supposed to do the funding because we are the people's House. We are ostensibly closest to the people in the Federal Government.

They don't want you to look at the rules promulgated by unelected bureaucrats. They want you to just blithely go ahead with it. That is the problem.

So when my colleague stands up and says, well, I don't know the cost. Maybe that cost is $45 billion. Maybe Biggs is right, maybe he is wrong. I don't know what is in the regulation. Maybe it is good, maybe it is not.

The essence of that argument is that we really shouldn't look at it. Really? Don't look at the law?

That is not what we are saying. We are saying, indeed, look at the regulation, and let's get as many regulations as we possibly can and look at them. That is what we are trying to do.

Let me give you one right now. This is another one right here. If you happen to be fortunate enough to buy a piece of property, no matter how large or how small, and you can pay cash for it--and oddly enough, I was able to buy a couple of acres of property not long ago--it was actually a long time ago, about 25 years ago now, back before property blew up in cost in my area--well, if I were to pay cash now, that transaction is going to be heavily regulated, and it is going to cost the economy and cost taxpayers $2.2 billion.

By the way, these aren't Biggs' numbers, these are the Biden administration's numbers. When the Biden administration's number says we imposed $1.4 or $1.37 trillion on our regulations, that is not me talking. That is the Biden administration admitting that their regulatory impact is $1.4 trillion.

Maybe we should look at that. Let me just add this: This notion that, gee, we need to look at these one at a time, and if we only get through 16 or 17 that is really odd because--it is ironic, actually. Tomorrow probably or the next day, you are going to see an omnibus, a short-term omnibus, come to the floor. They are calling it a CR, but it is really a short-term omnibus. In that bill are loads and loads of spending, loads and loads of policy.

Guess what? They are all going to vote for it. They just don't want you to look back at the rules that this administration has put into place.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from New York says we ought to know what is in the rule, he doesn't know diddly crap about the lead pipe rule that he keeps referring to. He doesn't know diddly about any of these other rules. He has admitted that.

He doesn't know about them, doesn't know how much they cost, and he doesn't know whether they would have a good cost-benefit analysis. Guess what? Most of this body doesn't either.

What he is arguing is you really shouldn't look at it because this bill does not change regular order. It does not change regular order. That means somebody is going to be drafting this bill. It means somebody is going to debate this bill in a committee. It means somebody is going to debate it on the floor, and that means you are going to have an opportunity to look at these rules, and if it has benefit, you can amend it.

You can amend that bill to remove that from your CRA. That is the way to get this through. I do find it--I have got to mention it again-- laughable to say you shouldn't combine 20 rules that are made by unelected officials who we haven't seen their rule, we haven't participated in their rulemaking process generically--that is normal-- and then stand up here and tell us we shouldn't have that lookback.

We shouldn't do that, when awkwardly, those same folks are going to vote on a massive omnibus spending package in the next 48 hours. They haven't seen the language. You know why I know they haven't seen the language? I know because it isn't out yet. I haven't seen the language, but they are going to vote for it. They don't want you to know what is in these rules promulgated by unelected officials. That is the doggone shame of it all.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we can walk around this barn all day long. When you say, look, we want you to do this on a single rule over and over again, that is not real. That is the way it has been. We don't know. Congress doesn't know.

That is why your constituents come up and say to you, hey, why is this going on? Why is now a financial adviser going to be regulated very tightly to the tune of $7.2 billion adjudicated by the Biden administration? Why is that?

Well, I don't know. Well, you are in Congress. Well, yeah, but it is a rule. You know, we put it on autopilot because we think the experts really are experts. Maybe they are. Maybe they are not. One thing this bill does is it says look at what the bureaucracy is doing. Look at what the fourth branch of government is doing here. Look at this.

If my colleague from New York says, hey, we don't know if something is good or bad, let me reiterate: We are not changing regular order. We are not changing regular order. Someone has to draft the bill. You are going to debate the bill. You are going to debate it in committee. You are going to debate it in rules. You are going to debate it on the floor. There will be opportunities to amend it. That is called regular order.

His criticism of our leadership for not bringing 12 bills, I am always there. I am always critical of it. This is probably the only thing that we have agreed on today so far. Well, his party did the same just a couple years ago, too. It goes back and forth.

There is a problem with that on both sides, but what I am encouraging and what this bill encourages is a real lookback, a real follow through on regular order, and a real understanding of what the rules are doing to the American people.

Some of them may be excellent. Some of them may not be so, but this is an opportunity to actually get Congress doing its job. Maybe that is why there is reticence to support this bill.

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

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

Here we go, Mr. Speaker. We are going to walk around the barn one more time. Let's go around that barn just one more time and say the same thing again.

My colleague and I are obviously diametrically opposed. He thinks that if this bill passes you won't look back, you won't specifically look at any iterated rule. I am telling you, nothing seems further from the truth than that to me because here is the deal: Somebody is going to have to draft that bill. They are going to have looked at some of these regulations. They then are going to bring it to the committee chairs, you are going to be sitting in a committee, and you are going to have a markup on this.

The gentleman from New York knows this because we both sit on the Judiciary Committee, and I sit on the Oversight and Accountability Committee, and we have almost indeterminable debates in markups. They go forever. Everybody gets 5 minutes for everything, for every amendment. If you have 25 rules sitting in there, guess what? You are going to have everybody in that committee probably taking 5 minutes a piece on all 25 rules and fully examining that rule and deciding whether they want to keep it in the CRA.

Right now do you know what happens? You might look at as many as 15 or 20 rules per Congress. That is it. We are talking literally hundreds and hundreds of rules that pass that are promulgated. Some may be great. Some may be bad. What this bill does is it encourages Congress to finally do its job.

I am all in on doing the 12 approps bills separately, but even with the 12 approps bills, you will have multiple lines that you are looking at, and you won't necessarily see all those lines.

It is time that we start looking at the rules and see what the administrative state is doing to Americans. That is the bottom line. They don't want that. They don't want that. That is a crying shame to me. It is a crying shame.

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

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

I am glad we agreed finally on the second thing, and that is we are going around in circles.

I want to make a couple quick points as I round the barn one more time. The most CRAs done in a year was in the 115th Congress. Mr. Speaker, 17, only 17--which by the way, that is the same year that Mike Lee had 13 feet of regulations promulgated by the administrative state.

I just want to remind you what happens in the last year and why this is critical. Regulatory promulgation kind of goes at a flat line. Then that last year of a Presidency, of an administration, boom, it spikes up. It spikes up. That is the reality. That is why we have always had the 60-day lookback. If it extends now to the whole year, if it were to do that, you are going to be dealing with a spike.

I am just getting back to this point. If the most you have ever looked at ever is 17 in a year, then you don't know what the other hand is doing, the other hand being the administrative state.

I am just saying let's do it. Let's look at them, and let's make this work.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, so you have thousands of regulations in 2024 promulgated, thousands, impacting us by $1.4 trillion. The most CRAs you have ever had is 17, and we are told, oh, just trust the administrative state.

I can't do that.

My constituents can't do that.

Americans can't do that.

We are trying to come up with a reasonable approach to make this more workable, and that is what this bill is. That is what H.R. 115 is. It encourages Congress to do its job. That is why this is so important.

I urge my colleagues to join me and vote in favor of H.R. 115. Let's get this passed and let's make Congress the legislative branch it is supposed to be per the Constitution.

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

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

Thank you. You didn't have to put the ``many'' in front of that, Debbie.

It is true. She was a young child when we first met.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to speak and recognize my good friend, Debbie. When I was serving from the east side of the valley and Debbie got elected to the school board, I started hearing about Debbie Lesko is going to be this great conservative politico. I did not know Debbie at that time, but I got to observe her. Then we ended up serving in the State legislature together, and she was dynamic and exciting and actually conservative.

As Greg mentioned, she worked on pension reform. The bulk of that took place after I left, thankfully, because pension reform, as anybody who has ever done it knows, is one ugly thing and takes a lot of courage. Debbie exhibited courage, and I would get reports on how she was doing that.

She brought in people with very disparate interests. She worked with them. She got them on board, and she would tell them where the rubber met the road. That was really awesome.

Then I am here, and then the next thing I know, Debbie is here with me. The bad news for me is that she is going home to Maricopa County. She is going to do a great job there.

This is great news for Maricopa County which, by the way, is one of the largest counties in the country. It is about, what, 5.5 million people in the county, something like that, with only five supervisors.

Debbie has told me this. I know she has told Paul this. I know she has told Greg this, and I know she has told David and Juan this: she only has one-and-a-half staffers. That is really bugging her. I can tell you that. She is going to do a great job.

She has been a great friend.

I will also pay homage to Joe and Debbie's family who have been so supportive, literally, for many years.

So with that, I----

I am like Winston Churchill. I am a crier.

Debbie, Cindy and I love you.

Madam 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 the subject of this Special Order.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin), the co-chair of the Border Security Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I appreciate serving with him on the Border Security Caucus. He does a great job there, and I appreciate it so much.

In Colorado, the Tren de Aragua has been overrunning Colorado communities. Border officials have referred to Tren de Aragua as MS-13 on steroids. These criminals are the worst that the world has to offer, and the Biden-Harris regime has allowed them to make themselves at home in Colorado communities.

Larry Medina was arrested by Aurora police in connection with a felony menacing at Whispering Pines Condominiums. The victim reported to police Medina pointed a firearm and threatened to kill him.

Jhonardy Pacheco-Chirinos was arrested on a first-degree assault warrant out of Adams District Court. The warrant stemmed from an assault in November 2023 at an apartment complex.

Jhonnarty DeJesus Pacheco-Chirinos was arrested in connection with a nonfatal shooting the day before at Fitzsimons Place apartments.

Luis Miguel Calzadilla-Rojas was arrested in connection with a nonfatal shooting in front of a probation officer.

Yoendry Vilchez Medina-Jose was arrested on a warrant stemming from an assault at Whispering Pines Condos.

Juan Carlos Mejia-Espana was arrested following a domestic dispute, also at Whispering Pines Condominiums. He had a weapon.

Carlos Aranguren-Mayora had numerous encounters with Aurora police officers and law enforcement agencies throughout the metro area. He faces a total of 38 charges, five active court cases.

Roiberth Daniel Mora-Marquez was arrested in connection with an April 4 dispute and assault over unpaid rent money. He is also a suspect in a nonfatal shooting.

Jose Miguel Reyes-Perez was arrested for aggravated assault, menacing, and motor vehicle theft.

This is what is going on in Colorado. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lopez) to discuss this further.

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Lopez for his comments.

On August 4, 2024, Enforcement and Removal Operations Boston apprehended Guatemalan national Jorge Luis Castro-Alvarado, who was charged with raping a Massachusetts resident. Castro illegally entered the United States on an unknown date, at an unknown location without being inspected, admitted, or paroled by a U.S. immigration official. He was convicted of assault and battery on a family or household member. The court sentenced Castro to 18 months in prison and suspended all but 6 months of the prison sentence.

In early 2023, Juan Carlos Garcia Rodriguez became one of the up to 140,000 unaccompanied children with whom HHS has lost contact. Just months after HHS lost contact with Garcia Rodriguez, he ran away from his sponsor and assaulted and murdered 11-year-old Maria Gonzalez in Pasadena, Texas. Garcia Rodriguez was illegally smuggled to the U.S. border through Louisiana in 2023 by a guide paid for by his parents. Rodriguez was then processed as a UAC and later transferred to custody of the Department of Health. Despite this, Rodriguez was placed with an unrelated adult sponsor who was also an illegal alien.

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne), who knows about the ravages of illegal migration.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.

Enforcement Removal Operations Boston apprehended an unlawfully present 28-year-old Salvadoran national charged with numerous sex crimes against a child on Nantucket island. Officers from ERO Boston arrested Bryan Daniel Aldana-Arevalo September 10 in Nantucket. Aldana had unlawfully entered the U.S. on an unknown date, at an unknown location without having been inspected, admitted, or paroled by a U.S. immigration official. Nantucket authorities arraigned Aldana on July 26 in Nantucket District Court for one count of rape of a child with a 10- year age difference and two counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14.

Deportation officers from Enforcement Removal Operations Atlanta arrested an Ecuadorian fugitive listed as one of the country's 100 most wanted criminals. Officers apprehended Cesar Condor Vaca during a targeted operation in Greenville, South Carolina, on January 30. The assistant attache in Ecuador notified ERO Atlanta that Condor Vaca was wanted by Ecuadorian authorities for femicide. An ERO assessment revealed Condor Vaca legally entered the U.S. on March 15, 2021, and failed to depart as required. ERO Atlanta officers served him with a notice to appear. A notice to appear. He will remain in U.S. ICE custody pending removal proceedings.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), who knows the ravages of illegal migration in South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the gentleman from South Carolina.

Ellen Gutierrez Saez, Johan Salvo Alacon, and Manuel Eduardo Fuentes Gomez, three Chilean citizens living illegally in the United States, were arrested and believed to be part of a South American criminal gang operating in the United States whose members commit robberies, fraud, and traffic stolen property.

That group is believed to be responsible for at least 111 robbery incidents since February 2023.

Nathan Kharim Melendez is wanted in Mexico for the criminal charge of causing multiple injuries with a vehicle and abandoning the scene, fleeing the scene. He has been wanted by Mexican authorities since March of this year when he was named as the suspected driver of a car that ran over a 30-year-old woman, her 5-year-old daughter, and 2-year- old nephew. He was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, in June of this year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Crane), one who knows the ravages of illegal migration in Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Crane's recounting of what is going on across our border.

ERO Boston removed Felipe Augusto De Oliveira, a 23-year-old Brazilian fugitive, from the United States who was wanted by authorities in his home country for attempted homicide.

U.S. Border Patrol apprehended De Oliveira on March 28, 2023, after he unlawfully entered the United States near Lukeville, Arizona. He was subsequently released on his own recognizance by a Department of Justice immigration judge, and I am sure we are looking for him still.

Enforcement and Removal Operations in Miami, in partnership with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's office, arrested Giovanni Radu, a 22-year- old citizen of Italy, who entered the United States as a nonimmigrant and violated the terms of his admission. He collected a total of $80,000 in the past year using a fake nonprofit.

He is facing State charges, including organized scheme to defraud, failure to register as a charitable organization, and a whole host of these things, as well as carrying a concealed weapon during a felony and battery on a law enforcement officer.

One who knows well, because she has some roots in Arizona as well as Florida, what is going on in the ravages of crime that is a result of this wide-open border is my friend, the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and appreciate her comments and experience along the border.

In August of 2023, illegal alien Kindu Jeancy Zamambu was charged with felony first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor unlawful imprisonment for assaulting a woman at a hotel in Cheektowaga, New York.

Zamambu, a 23-year-old national of the Democratic Republic of Congo, entered California on February 13, 2023. He was arrested about 1 mile west of San Ysidro, which is the San Diego area. ICE enrolled Zamambu in Alternatives to Detention and released him into the U.S. Less than 6 months later, he was assaulting a woman in New York.

Next, is Daniel Hernandez Martinez from Venezuela. Within 6 months of his release in the United States, Venezuelan national Daniel Hernandez Martinez committed at least 22 criminal offenses in New York City.

He is charged with petit larceny on four separate occasions, criminal possession of stolen property on three occasions, multiple charges for menacing, assault, attempted assault, criminal mischief, possession of burglary tools, disorderly conduct, and more.

He was released into the United States without any legal justification.

In addition to his crimes, DHS records indicate he is a suspected member of the dangerous Tren de Aragua gang. Currently, there are no DHS records to indicate that ICE has removed him from the country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), someone who knows the ravages of crime produced by illegal migration.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his stirring testimony.

Mr. Speaker, in November 2023, Jose Barrera Amaya was arrested for drunken conduct and fighting. DHS arrested Barrera Amaya, but the agency released him on the very same day. Just months after his first arrest in March 2024, Barrera Amaya was arrested for stabbing his neighbor and his neighbor's brother at a laundromat.

DHS first encountered Barrera Amaya in December 2021 along the U.S.- Mexico border. After being expelled pursuant to title 32, press reports indicated that Barrera Amaya had reentered the country as a got-away through Eagle Pass, Texas.

Jose Ibarra from Venezuela: Border Patrol apprehended Jose Ibarra in September 2022, and the Biden-Harris administration released Ibarra into the U.S. just 1 day later because it determined that Ibarra's release was warranted due to urgent and humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit.

On February 22, 2024, Jose Ibarra murdered 22-year-old nursing student Laken Riley in Athens, Georgia. Riley's body was found on the University of Georgia campus after she had gone for a run.

A day later, authorities arrested the 26-year-old Venezuelan national in connection with Riley's murder and charged him with malice murder, felony murder, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, kidnapping, hindering a 911 call, and concealing the death of another.

Laken Riley would be alive today if Biden and Harris were enforcing the law instead of releasing hardened criminals like Jose Ibarra.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), who knows what the ravages of illegal migration have done to Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for all of his good work on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, Jesus Enrique Ramirez Cabrera was arrested September 7 after abducting a high school girl in Manassas, Virginia. Cabrera allegedly approached the girl on her morning walk to school, falsely identified himself as a police officer, and then forced the girl into his car, abducting her. Thankfully, the girl was able to escape with minor injuries out of the moving car.

He was found and charged with abduction, robbery, impersonating a police officer, and petit larceny.

U.S. Border Patrol had arrested Ramirez Cabrera on December 9, 2023, after he unlawfully entered the United States near San Luis, Arizona. U.S. CBP issued Ramirez a notice to appear before a Department of Justice immigration judge and then released him from custody.

Here is another case that impacts Virginia. Jose Fabricio Veizaga- Vargas, who is a Bolivian, was arrested by U.S. Border Patrol on April 24, 2023. Now, remember this: On April 24, 2023, after he unlawfully entered the U.S. near El Paso, Texas, Veizaga was served with a notice to appear before a DOJ immigration judge, who released him on his own recognizance on April 25, 2023.

Following his arrest by Fairfax County Police on May 3, ERO Washington lodged an immigration detainer against Veizaga.

The Fairfax County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court convicted Veizaga of misdemeanor sexual assault of a child aged 13 to 14 and sentenced him to 6 months in jail, but the court then suspended all 6 months of the sentence. The Fairfax County Adult Detention Center refused to honor the immigration detainer and then released him from custody without even notifying ERO Washington, D.C.

Veizaga was again arrested on August 8--this is all in 2023--by Fairfax

County Police and charged with misdemeanor DWI. The detention center refused to honor ERO Washington's immigration detainer again and released him without notifying ERO Washington, D.C.

Fairfax County Police arrested Veizaga a week later and charged him with seven counts of felony possession of child pornography, felony possession of obscene material with a minor. The detention center refused again to honor the immigration detainer and again released Veizaga onto the streets without notifying ERO Washington, D.C.

Ultimately, on August 19--remember, this is all in 2023--in Annandale, Virginia, 36-year-old Bolivian Jose Fabricio Veizaga-Vargas was apprehended by ERO, Enforcement Removal Operations, and convicted of sexually assaulting a Virginia child. He is also now charged with DWI and possession of child sexual abuse material.

The point of it is that we see how much havoc this one individual wreaked upon Virginia. That is what we have because of the Biden-Harris open-border policies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good), my friend who has seen the ravages of illegal migration.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Good for his remarks. It is a pleasure to hear from him and have him participate.

After everything we have heard tonight, it is no wonder that Kamala Harris has been working hard to distance herself from her role as the border czar. Under her watch, more than 10 million illegal aliens have crossed our border, 350 terrorists have been stopped at the border, of which 100 of those were released into the country. That is just who we know about.

Since 2021, more than 200,000 Americans have died from fentanyl overdoses, and enough fentanyl has come into the country to kill 458 million people, more than enough to kill every American alive.

More than 300,000 children have been misplaced under the border czar's watch. In fact, she can't even tell you, Mr. Speaker, exactly how many are missing. She has no idea where they are. All we know is that sometimes you had an individual sponsor receive as many as 40, 50, or 60 unaccompanied young children whom we don't know now where they are, and we don't vet the sponsors anyway.

Now, Kamala Harris wants us to believe that she would be tough on the border and that she would solve the crisis.

Why would anyone believe her?

What would she do differently than when she was second in command of the executive branch and designated the border czar?

The reality is she wouldn't do anything differently.

We know this not only from her record as the border czar but also from the policies she has supported throughout her career.

Let's just recount some of those. For instance, she called the border wall stupid, useless, and a medieval vanity project. That is not unlike one of Arizona's Congressmen, Mr. Gallego, who said that it was stupid and useless.

Here we have Kamala Harris saying that the detention centers need to be shut down, promising to do so if she was President.

She has supported measures to reduce detention bed numbers and cut funding for border wall construction.

She opposed all of President Trump's effective border policies, including remain in Mexico and title 42.

She has even said she supports using taxpayer dollars to pay for sex change surgeries for detained illegal aliens.

Does that sound like someone who wants to fix the border?

Does that sound like a border State prosecutor which she now aggrandizes herself as as she goes around the country campaigning?

There should be no doubt that if Kamala Harris is in the White House next year we will only get more of the same and maybe even worse.

Mr. Speaker, if you thought 10 million illegal aliens in 4 years was bad, you just wait. The American people should not be fooled.

Now, talking about not being fooled, here is what you have from former San Diego Sector Chief Agent Aaron Heitke who told members of the House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday that the White House repeatedly tried to fake America out, to ``quiet the border-wide crisis.''

What was she doing? What was the Biden-Harris administration doing?

She was shielding information from the press and concealing crossings by dangerous migrants with terrorist ties.

This is what he said: ``I had to release illegal aliens by the hundreds each day into communities who could not support them.

``To quiet the problem, two flights a week were provided from San Diego to Texas. These flights simply brought aliens that would have been released in San Diego over to Texas.''

Each flight cost about $150,000.

That is what Kamala Harris the border czar did.

What else did the administration do?

What else did she do to hide what is happening at the border?

For one thing, they don't count CBP One entrance or the Venezuela, Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua program as encounters. So when you count and you see the number, Mr. Speaker, you are not going to see that.

So what does that mean?

It means the last 15 months CBP One people have come in and been released into the country under that fraudulent, illegal program, by the way. There are 815,000 just in that program that they don't count. Venezuela, Haiti, Cuba, and Nicaragua, 530,000 in the same period of time, 530,000.

Mr. Speaker, do you wonder why you have Tren de Aragua all over the country?

By the way, about 6 weeks ago, CBP actually issued from their headquarters to the field offices a notification saying: Hey, watch out, Tren de Aragua is now embedded and infiltrating the country, but it is moving to the Northeast part of the United States of America.

In the same memo, they said: Also, be aware that Iran and Iranian proxies are flooding our border with terrorists.

That is not Biggs talking. That is Kamala Harris' own administration admitting their failure.

How about this: Jerome Powell, the head of the Federal Reserve, just yesterday said: Do you know what is causing rising unemployment?

It is unfettered illegal immigration.

That is from Kamala Harris' administration. They appointed Jerome Powell to be the head of the Federal Reserve. That is what you see from this border, Mr. Speaker.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? I have literally listened to some of my colleagues in our committee say: There is no crisis on the border. There is no problem on the border. El Paso, for instance, is a loving community. We don't have a problem.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker?

We have a problem not just on the border anymore. Arizona is a transit for illegal migration. Phoenix is a hub for human sex and drug trafficking. We have got multiple interstates going through there, and the illegal migration comes up and goes from Phoenix and is distributed throughout the country.

That is why Arizona, Texas, California, and New Mexico now are not the only States suffering under the rampage of an invasion of illegal migrants. It is every State and every community.

So, Mr. Speaker, when you talk about who controls the borders, it is the cartels. The cartels control the border. There are multiple plaza fights going on right now between various factions, some within the Sinaloa cartel in and of itself, going after each other trying to pick up pieces so they can control the plaza. That is what is going on.

Why is it going on?

It is because this administration refuses to enforce the law. It is going on because when President Biden was elected, within 72 hours he had issued more than 100 executive orders, many of which were to basically emasculate the border security and policy of the previous administration under Donald Trump which was so successful.

I will give you now just one quick example, Mr. Speaker.

The Yuma sector, the last year Donald Trump was President, had fewer than 8,600 encounters. There have been weekends under this administration that they have had 8,600 encounters. The Tucson sector 60,000 per year on average under the previous administration.

Under this administration, there have been months, nearing 60,000. That is what you have to understand, Mr. Speaker. It isn't just numbers. These numbers represent people who come in here, some with benign intentions and others with malevolent intentions.

Mr. Speaker, this has got to stop, and it must end now, but this administration refuses to do it. H.R. 2 sits languishing over there in the Senate. It has been there for 1\1/2\ years. That is a bill that would bring this to a halt quickly.

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