Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, what I find intriguing is we have had references repeatedly tonight that this is not the Kremlin and assertions that some of us received subpoenas and didn't respond. This individual doesn't know the facts. When a subpoena was issued, does he know whether service was ever made? Does he know that? The answer is no, and it wasn't.

Let's talk about why we are here today. The other side says: Wait a second, Mr. Garland was in compliance because he provided a written transcript that was accurate--except for what happened 3 weeks ago now, the DOJ itself in pleadings to the court said: We made changes to the transcript, but don't worry, don't worry about those changes. They were de minimis. We took out repeat words. We took out pauses. We took out all kinds of things that were just small in nature.

How do we know? We don't know. However, there was an audio recording. Isn't that fortunate? There was an audio recording.

Just like in the Nixon tapes--and this is the controlling law here-- the Court said if you change the written transcript, you have to provide the audio recording. That is what the Court said. My friends across the aisle said we have to rely on what the Court said. The Court said if you have doctored or altered or changed or edited the transcript, the written transcript, you have to provide the audio recording.

That is all we are asking for. Comply with that. Comply with the law. Comply with the subpoena you were given, the subpoena that you didn't contest, that you admitted you were served with, that you admitted controls.

Now, you claim executive privilege, but you can't claim executive privilege because you waived it.

The courts have ruled on that, too. It has to be timely. They didn't make a timely objection. It has to be related to official duties. This wasn't related to official duties.

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't related to official duties. They have waived the privilege. Merrick Garland waived the privilege. He now needs to respond, and he continues to say no.

We have the authority. We have the inherent contempt authority, and we need to use that authority if we are going to maintain our Article I authorities and the separation of powers.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, many people may not know this, but NBC News recently reported that more than 400 illegal aliens who are affiliates of ISIS were released into the United States under this administration's watch. They have caught some of them, but they still have a significant number of them out.

Do you know what they said? Gee, if we could have enforced the law, we wouldn't have released them into the country, and we could have rounded them up and prevented them from ever getting into the country.

The reason I bring that up is because I am speaking in support of my amendment, which prohibits the use of funds to pay the salary and the expenses of the position of the DHS Secretary.

Who is the DHS Secretary? Who is this individual? It is the person who has been the architect of the open-border policy.

I think one of my colleagues from Florida, who was on the floor here just a moment ago, said it is a fictional invasion. Really? It is 10 million people in 2\1/2\, 3 years. They started setting records when? February 2021. They have set records every month since. Who is in charge of that? Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary.

In fact, this body was so disenchanted with his policies that we impeached Secretary Mayorkas. When he was confronted with: Do you have operational control of the border? He said, in a Judiciary hearing, you know what, hey, we don't like that. First, he said, yes, we have operational control. We gave him the statute. Are you at operational control? Well, you know, we basically devised our own definition.

That is the person who is occupying the Homeland Security chair right now, and they have incentivized literally millions of people to come into this country. That is the lawlessness that has brought people to their knees in many communities around this country.

We are still trying to get information from the DHS and the Department of Defense about the terrorists who attempted to infiltrate Quantico just about 6 weeks ago.

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

Mr. Chair, I get a kick when I hear Democrats say that the so-called bipartisan bill out of the Senate would have solved this problem. Do you know what that bill did? It granted amnesty. Do you know what it did? It set a floor of 2,500 illegal aliens every day who get to come in.

Guess what else it did? They provided loophole after loophole. There is no limit on unaccompanied children, and hundreds of thousands have come in. They have misplaced over 100,000 now. They are just so irresponsible.

We heard people talk about an ineffective and outdated policy. Do you know what worked? That ineffective and outdated policy. Do you know why? Because it secured the border.

We had the most secure border in about, I don't know, our Nation's history under President Trump. When they came in, President Biden issued 93 EOs. Guess what? You have a mass invasion on the border.

What is it called? They called it a useless border wall. Do you know who voted for that border wall originally? That is right, people like Hillary Clinton. They voted for that border wall. They don't want a border wall.

I have on my phone images from the Tucson sector of people dressed in camo bringing drugs across interdicted just the other day. Do you know why they were going near the San Miguel gate, which I have taken colleagues to before? Because there is no fence. In Arizona, we largely have no fences.

Here is the deal: This Homeland Security Secretary is the one who gave us this policy.

I can say what I heard from these people. I can say what they said: ineffective, outdated policies. They said these people are legally entitled to refugee status.

Under what law? Under international law. How about the first safe nation law? They are required to obey that. Guess what? That is what the U.S. law is, as well--the first safe harbor, the first safe state. That is where someone who wants refugee status comes in, but they are not seeking refugee status. They are seeking asylum.

Do you know who sought asylum? The two outrageous murderers who just murdered that 12-year-old girl in Houston. They were released under asylum requests. They went and had the cartel cut off their ankle bracelets.

That is what is happening. That is why this Secretary, this position, which we are defunding correctly under the Holman rule, should not be funded, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, which prohibits funding from being used to implement the DHS 2022 rule that allows illegal aliens to receive more government subsidies.

Under our immigration law, one ground of inadmissibility for aliens is if they are likely to become a public charge. That is in the statute. That is to say, if they are going to be a financial burden to the American people due to the likelihood that they will rely on public assistance programs, they are inadmissible.

However, in 2022, the DHS weakened this rule by excluding a whole host of government benefit programs, including Medicaid.

What does this mean?

First, it gives the Biden administration more excuses to allow millions of illegal aliens into the country by doing away with one standard that would legally disqualify many people.

Second, it allows the Biden administration to explicitly pay illegal aliens to be in the country with taxpayer dollars, which has always been their plan.

Third, it creates a major pull factor or incentive for people who are thinking of crossing the border to actually cross the border illegally.

There is evidence of this. Just talk to the people crossing the border. I have. I have gone down to the border many times. I take people with me, Members of Congress, all the time. When you ask people, they will say they heard the U.S. Government was going to pay them to be here--I have actually had people say this--and that they will take me where I want to go.

Why wouldn't they say that? It is true.

Can someone tell me any policy by this administration that discourages illegal aliens from entering the country? There is not one serious policy that actually deters immigration.

This is why we must vote to end this open border DHS rule and stop giving Federal dollars to illegal aliens.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Senate bill that my colleagues love so much didn't ever make it over here. It didn't make cloture twice in the Senate. My colleagues can continue to yell and scream, but we passed H.R. 2, which is laying over there in Chuck Schumer's lap, who is refusing to move it.

Let's talk a little bit about this cruel and inhumane business. Do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know what is cruel? How about for those who live in Yuma, Arizona, where the community has one hospital. There is one hospital. When there is an emergency, they don't have enough beds for you if you are a citizen because they are dealing with illegal aliens who have flooded that hospital.

That is cruel and inhumane. Do my colleagues know what happens? They air evac citizens to Phoenix or San Diego. That is cruel and inhumane.

Does the minority know what happens? Let's say a citizen is pregnant. That maternity ward has 10 beds in it at Yuma. Most of the time, it is filled with illegal aliens who have come in.

We just heard a lot about money, about this benefit. There are others who assert the exact opposite. The one thing that we do know for sure that everybody agrees on, right and left, if my colleagues actually talk to people who know something: There are remittances well in excess of $100 billion a year that go out from illegal aliens in this country. It is a cash flow.

If my colleagues talk to leaders from the Central American States or even representatives from Mexico, they are going to tell Members what the cash flow is that those remittances provide for them. In Mexico, it is the number two leading cash flow for them.

They come here because these individuals are incentivized to come here, in part, because of the public charge that we allow them to be on. That is why this amendment is crucial. If someone who is in this country illegally should not be here and is receiving benefits, should they receive the more than 90 social welfare benefits that this country, the Federal Government, provides?

This administration has loosened the number of those benefits that are available to illegal aliens. That should not happen. We have a public charge rule. If you come in legally, you can't get in, but my colleagues are wanting to say: Well, if you are here illegally, that is okay.

Good grief. This is the statute. We are reverting to the statute that worked. That is why this amendment is critical.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the primary sponsor of H.R. 4205, a bill originally introduced by Representative Santos of New York, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

During his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Special Counsel Hur stated that ``the evidence and the President himself put his memory squarely at issue.'' In his report, Special Counsel Hur noted that during both his and Zwonitzer's interviews with President Biden, the President's memory was ``significantly limited.'' President Biden has contested that. The Democrats contest that.

In reality, it is the failure to fully comply with committee subpoenas regarding the audio recordings of the Biden and Zwonitzer interviews that has hindered the House's ability to adequately conduct oversight over Special Counsel Hur regarding his investigative findings and the President's retention and disclosure of classified materials, and it has impeded the committee's impeachment inquiry.

The committee must assess whether Special Counsel Hur's declination decision, which was based on President Biden's poor mental state, was consistent with the Department's commitment to impartial justice or whether legislative reforms are necessary regarding special counsel investigations because they are not leading to impartial outcomes.

In short, the audio recordings would offer unique and important information to advance the committee's impeachment inquiry and inform the Judiciary Committee as to the need for legislative reforms to the operations of the Department or the conduct of special counsel investigations.

Those are legislative purposes. They are constitutional purposes. They justify us getting the audio recordings. Yet, they don't want the audio recordings to come forward. Why is that? It is odd, isn't it? The DOJ admitted in court filings 2 weeks ago that they actually did alter the transcript. They claim there was just filler information. Maybe they were duplicative words. There are blank pauses in there that were not noted in the transcript.

That is why an audio recording is important because the transcripts do not reflect important verbal context such as tone, tenor, or nonverbal context such as pauses or pace of delivery, all of which went into the decision by Mr. Hur not to prosecute a crime that he said was committed.

That prosecutorial discretion is under review by our committee, legitimately and constitutionally. We have the right to that audio recording. The Department has said they are not going to give it to us--odd--because the cases that deal with requiring the audio recording to be turned over, the long skein of cases, turn on various things like the audio recording is the best evidence. They say that. Odd.

They also say that if there is tampering or any kind of editing or altering of the written transcript, which we

now know is true, then the audio recording is mandatory. That is why we should get it. This Department won't give it to us. Merrick Garland is in contempt of this Congress, and he needs to be held in contempt.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in support of my amendment, which protects defense-related activities from the aggressive use of the Endangered Species Act.

This amendment would curb the Endangered Species Act's application in areas used for national defense-related operations and prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from designating areas necessary for military operations as crucial habitats.

Compliance with environmental laws has created restrictions on how DOD manages, plans, and conducts training exercises on its installations. According to DOD, 85 percent of Army installations have threatened endangered species present. Two million acres of Army training and testing lands have training restrictions in place related to stringent ESA requirements. These restrictions, when applied, harm our readiness and our mission.

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

Mr. Chair, the issue that I bring forward is a longstanding issue.

A 2004 review by GAO discusses issues at the Barry M. Goldwater Range at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, where officials reported that nearly 10 percent of the F-16 training exercises were canceled due to the presence of an endangered species on the training range impact area. That doesn't include the long-range missile testing that now has to be canceled and rescheduled on a regular basis.

Nearly 80 percent of Marine Corps Aviation units train at the Goldwater Range before deployment. The range provides the space and infrastructure for marines to receive this critical tactical aviation training, air-to-ground and air-to-air.

Maybe DOD hasn't asked for it, but my colleagues should go out to the Barry M. Goldwater Range area. If my colleagues are so doggone concerned about biodiversity, they should get their tails down to the border to take a look at the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. Look at the garbage that has come through because of the illegal aliens and the trash that is there. It is tons. The biodiversity that has been impacted there is incalculable.

They have cut roads through this otherwise pristine desert that sits

right next to the Barry M. Goldwater Range. We have the animals that are driven through. We have the individuals.

If biologists determine that a Sonoran pronghorn may be present within 3 miles of training range impact areas, missions are redirected or canceled. That is a regular occurrence.

I get a kick out of people who live in Northern Virginia. They sell cars. They want to talk about car sales for EVs. Get your tail down to the border. Look at the biodiversity degradation that is there. Talk to the people who run the Barry M. Goldwater Range and other military installations. They are going to tell you that our readiness project is endangered because of strict ESA rules.

This amendment would help protect our mission and our readiness.

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

Mr. Chair, when you say zero evidence, I guess the GAO report gets discounted. I guess the evidence from the people who run the range gets discounted. I guess hearing from the contractors who work there and have to reschedule repeatedly because of the enforcement of the ESA is not evidence either. I guess the fact that China doesn't have to worry about environmental impacts from an ESA impacting their readiness is zero evidence.

When we look at it, in the Southwest, you have the acuna cactus. That is preventing, in many areas in the entire eastern portion of the Goldwater Range, the use of military targets and off-road vehicles, which impedes the ability to get mission ready.

With the continued rising threats abroad, Congress must ensure that military readiness is not negatively impacted by regulatory compliance constraints from radical environmentalists. This amendment ensures that the Department of Defense can conduct the training necessary to keep the men and women of our Armed Forces prepared.

Mr. Chair, I urge passage of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, as I have done for each of the past 5 years--this is the sixth year in a row--I rise to speak in support of my amendment, which would prohibit funds for any project or activity related to NATO until the Secretary of Defense certifies to congressional defense committees that each member of NATO has spent 2 percent of their respective GDP on defense expenditures.

In 2006, NATO members agreed to spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense spending to ensure the readiness of the alliance. By 2014, just three members had reached the agreed-upon 2 percent funding level. Under a new 2014 agreement, each member country has until 2024 to reach their 2 percent goal.

Unfortunately, as of 2023, just 11 of the 32 countries, including the United States, contributed at least 2 percent of GDP on defense. This has to change.

In 2023, Italy was projected to spend just 1.46 percent of its GDP on defense, and its Defense Minister stated that they will certainly not meet NATO's target in 2024 and will likely not meet NATO's target by 2028.

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

Mr. Chairman, in 2023, Germany stepped back from its commitment to meeting NATO's target of spending 2 percent, going back on its 2022 commitment to invest more than 2 percent of their GDP to defense year after year.

In 2024, that number is expected to grow, and about two-thirds of NATO member countries are expected to at least meet the 2 percent target. That would be great. Much of the growth that we have seen recently was due, in large part, to President Trump's push to our NATO allies to increase spending to meet the 2 percent standard.

However, more work must be done to ensure NATO allies are paying their

fair share. The U.S. continues to spend far more than its fair share and takes on the overwhelming responsibility of being the world's police.

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

Mr. Chairman, we hear about Ukraine and NATO. We haven't even discussed China and other areas around the world that are concerns.

What is our number one threat? For 20 years, we have been told it is our national debt by bipartisan leaders of the military and the Department of Defense. Why do we end up carrying free riders? Why do we lead the way on everything? Because we are America, but let me tell you something: That can't endure.

Why did the USSR go away? The USSR went away not because there was a coup or an uprising. It was a business enterprise that had to declare bankruptcy. That is why the USSR failed, ultimately. At $35 trillion in national debt, we have that danger, as well. We cannot afford to carry free riders indefinitely.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, if you want to strengthen NATO and you want to stop free riding, maybe you use leverage. Maybe you use leverage. If you want to strengthen our country, maybe use leverage to get your partners who are supposed to be your partners to start paying their share.

The only reason that this is even improving is because the previous administration made that a big issue and made that demand. We should make that demand still.

I reiterate: The number one security threat, according to a long line of DOD officials, is our national debt. At some point you simply can't keep funding the military operations you want to fund. If your partners aren't willing to pay their share, you don't strengthen them, you weaken us.

That is what this amendment is designed to do. It doesn't prevent us from putting forward our operations anywhere, but it does encourage and leverage our partners to actually pay their fair share.

Mr. Chair, I urge everyone to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for doing this.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to dovetail with what Mr. Good has talked about, and that is the weaponization of the Federal Government against American citizens for political purposes.

It is bad enough when it becomes weaponized against American citizens, but it becomes actually exponentially worse when it becomes a tool of authoritarianism to actually attack political opponents.

Why is it worse? It is worse because it undermines the very foundation of the rule of law and of the free association and free speech of American citizens, from which we recognize all of our political apparatus.

Let's think about this. We know the committee of weaponization, the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, recently put out a report dealing

with the misuse of financial records of Americans. Imagine if the Federal Government could get ahold of everybody's credit card statements. Well, they can, actually. Why can they? Because they have asked for it, and the banks and credit card companies, many of them, have actually turned that information over to the FBI and the Department of Justice.

For what reason? There is no particular reason. There is no indicia of probable cause or suspicious behavior. They are just acquiring metadata so they can go after and pursue the individuals.

We see the same thing with this movement to buy up additional metadata from data brokers, private commercial data brokers. They do that so they can avoid the requirements of suspicious conduct or probable cause.

That is what went on when the FBI actually did millions of queries on American citizens and did hundreds of thousands of illegal searches of the data of American citizens.

They didn't have probable cause. There was nothing, according to statute. This is part of the problem with the FISA statute. They had no reason to believe that any of those searches would lead to finding criminal conduct, yet they still went after these American citizens.

The DOJ and judiciary are joined by the ATF. The ATF has been going after firearm licensees, distributors, trying to find technical errors showing up because this is the way the Biden administration is trying to disarm the American public.

It just goes on. Every institution has been weaponized. The military has been weaponized.

It looks like General Perry is here. He might want to talk about that.

The education system is weaponized. You know what happens when you have a generation or two that has been indoctrinated into how bad this country is, that we have no moral high ground, that we don't respect freedom, that we are going to basically embrace critical race theory and that type of the thing.

First of all, you remember that when they did this, they said there is no such thing as critical race theory. That is what the Democrats said here. We were in Judiciary. We had debates on it. They said there is no such thing.

Of course, there is such a thing. Critical theory grew right out of the Frankfurt School, the philosophical group that was led by Jurgen Habermas, Theodor Adorno and the others in the Frankfurt School. They came over and created the critical theory.

In the early seventies, a law professor created the notion of critical race theory. He published articles. It was adopted. The reality is what has happened with that is you have an indoctrinated generation that believes that America is no good, was no good, and will never be good because it is systemically and inherently problematic. It is not just critical race theory. There is a whole bundle of other critical arguments related to critical theory.

You have district attorneys and county attorneys who have run on the notion that those who commit violent crime are misunderstood and should be released into the public, and that those who are victimized become marginalized, which is why I introduced the ALVIN bill, which was to get at Mr. Bragg in New York, and the WILLIS Act.

What are these meant to do? They are meant to use what the Founders gave us within the Constitution, which is our opportunity to use the funding streams and the purse strings to actually try to bring a runaway executive branch back in.

This all culminates in today's actions. What do we see happening? I won't steal my friend's thunder because he was talking about former President Donald Trump, who is undergoing four pieces of lawfare. Those lawfare originated right in the White House. They are coming down from President Biden. How do we know that? Because the paramour of Fani Willis came up and met in the White House to get instructions. How do we know that? Because Jack Smith, who is prosecuting him here on the Mar-a-Lago case, went to the White House multiple times to get instructions. How do we know that? Because Alvin Bragg also met with the White House. How do we know that? Because Matthew Colangelo, one of the high-ranking DOJ lawyers, left that DOJ and went to Alvin Bragg's office after Alvin Bragg and everybody else who looked at the case that is going on in New York City said there is no there there.

By the way, they probably were also told your two star witnesses are Stormy Daniels, who has basically said multiple times--four different times--there was never any interaction between her and Donald Trump, and then Michael Cohen, who has a long string of convictions for lying. He lied about lying, and then he lied about lying about lying today. We heard it in the hours of testimony we saw.

The next step is, how else do you weaponize government? You use it to shield bad acts from the public. Let me give you one. This is my last one. Today, the Judiciary Committee voted to hold Merrick Garland in contempt of court. Tonight, I anticipate the Oversight Committee will do the same.

What did the Biden administration do? President Biden has asserted executive privilege. Now, I want my colleagues to think about this for just a moment. The rationale for the executive privilege based on what Merrick Garland said today, both in an oral and written statement, was two reasons. Number one, we are not going to be able to pursue sensitive investigations. He didn't say how that works, but that is not a reason for executive privilege. It isn't. The other thing with regard to executive privilege is they talked about politics and the political ramifications if this audio recording was released.

Now, you have already released the transcript. By the way, both of those arguments are undercut because you already released a written transcript.

The only reason not to bring out the recording is because you were abashed, embarrassed because you either doctored your transcript, your written transcript, or because the performance is so egregiously bad in the oral transcript. Neither of those will work.

I am going to call right now and remind everybody that we can take action here. We should. I will just tell you that that is another way that you can weaponize government. That is to hide information, fail to be transparent. That is what this administration has done.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate both of the chairmen for their comments.

I want to add just a couple things. We are a constitutional republic. We are not a democracy. A constitutional republic actually elects representatives to make decisions and represent the will of a district or a State. That is the distinction.

Democracy actually comes from the Latin word ``demos''. It is where the people themselves are voting directly on the issues and decisions to be made. That is really what happens in a democracy, which is why the Founders warned us and said: You have a constitutional republic, you don't have a democracy. You don't have a democracy because democracies have been short and turbulent in their destruction.

As one historian said in about 1804, it has been the sad history of democracies that as soon as people realize they can vote themselves benefits from the government, they do so, and the government terminates. So we have a constitutional republic.

We have separation of powers both horizontally and vertically. James Madison taught us very clearly that we should honor those separations rigidly.

When we talk about horizontally, we always think of the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judiciary, which by the way, are not coequal branches. The Founders were very clear on this. They described the judiciary as the weakest branch. We control their jurisdiction, except for in a few cases of original jurisdiction. We create the Article III courts with the exception of the United States Supreme Court.

The executive branch has very limited powers. In fact, they thought the executive branch itself, the Presidency would be more ceremonial than substantive, and the legislative branch would be small with enumerated powers, but because the House of Representatives was elected directly by the people, it would have the purse strings.

The Senate was to be elected by the State legislatures, and they were to represent the States' interests.

Well, what has happened is we are upside down. We are so upside down because every State--having spent many years in the State legislature, and I think my colleagues know this.

What happens is this: We spend about 80 percent of our time in the State of Arizona trying to respond to Federal mandates passed by this bunch of yo-yos or by the bureaucracy where they were telling us things like, gee, in Phoenix, Arizona, what we want you to do is we want you to water down your dust because the number one particulate in the Phoenix metro area is dust. That is your biggest pollutant. Water it down.

The other half is EPA saying: You can't water it down because we are watching you on your water usage. This is from people who are cubicle dwellers who are controlling, without any understanding, 5.5 million people in the Phoenix metro area.

They become weaponized. They are nameless. They are faceless. They are the D.C. cartel, which consists of bureaucracy, media, and lobbyists. That is your cartel. They have taken the institutions of this country, and they have weaponized them against the American people.

It is time for this body to say we are the ones closest to the people, and we must do all we can. We may not have leverage over the Senate now, we may not have leverage over the executive branch now, but we must do and can do everything possible to restore the separation of powers both horizontally and vertically. If we did that, I guarantee you what would happen is this weaponization would dissipate. It wouldn't go quietly in the night, but we have felt it wrap around our necks like the flaxen cords of sin, and we have got to begin cutting it off.

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

I do find it interesting that the arguments are consistently wrong from my colleagues across the aisle.

First of all, now they are telling us: Oh, it is just money. They need more money.

Yet, overwhelmingly, everybody on that side of the aisle voted for the continuing resolutions that came up last year. There wasn't one of them who said: Let's amend the CR and get more money.

No. They didn't do that. They said: We are going to rely instead on this bogus bill that is going to come from the Senate.

Now, the bogus bill from the Senate that they now love and embrace, why do they embrace it?

It is because it has a few things in it that are really unique. Number one, every day 1,500 people have to be allowed in. Not legally, because we allow over 1 million people in legally, they have to be let in if they are here illegally. Well, 1,500 would be an improvement for sure because we are looking at 3 million this year, and that would only be about over one-half a million.

I can understand why they would say that that is an improvement. The reality is that the President has authority now to act and has chosen not to act. This bill from the Senate would have said that he could close the border when the number got to 5,000 a day. That was an option, 5,000. Good grief, that is over 1.8 million.

By the way, that would still be an improvement over what the Biden policy is today.

The mandatory closure of the border doesn't kick in until 7,500 illegal aliens are encountered. Wow, that is what they say is so great.

The other thing they like about it is it granted amnesty. That is what they really liked about this. We know right now President Biden could close that border right now today if he would change the policy.

To what, one might say?

How about back to the policies of his predecessor, Donald Trump?

Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker. The Yuma sector is a good- sized sector along the border. The entire last year of Donald Trump's Presidency, the encounters were a little under 8,000 for the whole year.

Do you know what they get every day now, Mr. Speaker? And this is down. They get 350 a day.

There have been days that I have been in Yuma where they have had 2,500 to 3,000 a day. Last week I was down at the border, and the week before that I was down at the border at different places in Arizona. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Arizona is on track to going from 2018 through 2020, 60,000 encounters a year on average. This year it will be over 700,000 encounters.

The number one drug trafficking and human trafficking corridor is the Tucson sector. When I was there just 2 weeks ago driving along the border, there were no Border Patrol agents.

Why is that, you might say, because you could go for miles?

It was because every agent was processing the illegal aliens who had crossed during the night. There were hundreds, and we are supposed to say: Well, do you know what? This is a meaningless resolution.

It is not a meaningless resolution. It gets at the heart of the matter.

Who is being impacted by this type of diaspora?

Every country in the world is represented. I have talked to people from all over the world, and let me just tell you this, Mr. Speaker, if you go down to the little town of Sierra Vista in Cochise County, not too far from the border, about 20,000, 25,000 people live there. They have multiple high-speed car chases every week. Why?

It is because the cartels control the southern border. They Snapchat and they Instagram to kids in Tucson high schools, Chandler high schools, and Mesa high schools up in my district who will go down and borrow their mom and dad's car.

They will go down, and they say: Come meet us at this mile marker, and you will have four bodies. You will get paid $1,000 to $2,000 a body. You take them up to I-8 and I-10, drop them off at this mile marker, or you take them to an address in Phoenix to a drop house. Whatever you do, don't stop.

These kids are as young as 13, fatality drivers, who drive at high speeds through a town of 25,000 people. That is the impact that our local law enforcement and our local people feel.

How about the city of Yuma?

There is one hospital, a 10-bed ER and a 10-bed maternity ward, and it is oftentimes filled with illegal aliens. Locals have to be air- vacked to San Diego or Phoenix. That is real. My friends can dance around it all they want, but this is why this is not a meaningless resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I support it, and I encourage my friends to do the same.

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

Before I get into the nub, I will just respond to a couple things.

The baseline, the reason that you come down 16 percent and still have rabid crime is because you were so high the years before, and they were. Washington, D.C., was. We know it; you know it; everybody knows it.

I would also suggest that my friend from Florida is correct. The D.C. Council had not taken action that they needed to take. In fact, they had gone the other way and only recently were converted after Congress put pressure on them to make changes. By the way, that was bipartisan pressure, but somehow, we are told that is improper now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, H.R. 7530, the DC CRIMES Act, which takes necessary steps to improve public safety in our Nation's Capital for its residents and for our constituents.

As violent crime skyrockets and D.C. police officer ranks continue to dwindle, the D.C. Council continues to push progressive policies that make everyone in D.C. unsafe. Their inaction has endangered residents of and visitors to our Nation's Capital, which is why in 2022, when the D.C. Council passed the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022, I think we were all shocked.

The bill eliminated mandatory minimum sentences for all crimes except first-degree murder, eliminated life sentences, and reduced maximum penalties for violent crimes.

What whipsawed them back in just about an 18-month period? I suggest to you, respectfully, that it was because Congress was exercising its constitutional oversight authority over the District of Columbia, and that persuaded the council that they were in the eye and being watched by Congress. Their residents were also unhappy.

I am going to have to suggest, respectfully, that it wasn't the D.C. Council responding to crime across America and not just in D.C., which is an ironic argument to make, quite frankly, when you are claiming that Congress has no authority, when we have constitutional authority to oversee the actions of D.C. The reality is, the council was responding to oversight that is authorized by the Constitution.

Congress responded by blocking the reckless D.C. act from taking effect by advancing the bipartisan H.J. Res. 26 into law. The response from the D.C. Council was to then pass another bill, the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act, which targeted D.C. Metropolitan Police Department officers and their ability to combat rising crime.

Congress attempted to block this act with H.J. Res. 42, but President Biden vetoed the bipartisan disapproval resolution, ensuring D.C.'s antipolice reforms went into effect.

The D.C. Metropolitan Police Department has lost over 1,200 members since 2020 and staffing remains at the lowest level in 50 years, with officers often citing the D.C. Council's restrictive laws as their reasons for leaving. In a hearing last year, former D.C. Police Chief Contee noted that MPD needed an additional 800 officers to be fully staffed.

As a result of the council's continued soft-on-crime agenda, crime in D.C. has increased 30 percent in 2023 compared to the previous year.

Homicides were up 29 percent over 2022 and homicides doubled since 2012, which is why, when my colleague across the aisle begins saying they are down 16 percent in 2024, why do you think that is? It is because you had hit records in 2023 and now you are beginning to take this seriously because Congress is acting.

Violent crime increased by 37 percent from 2022 to 2023, with robberies rising 65 percent.

Motor vehicle thefts increased by 107 percent in 2023 compared to 2022.

Congressman Donalds' bill ensures that Congress is fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities to oversee the district by lowering D.C.'s definition of youth to 18 and prohibiting D.C. from enacting new soft-on-crime sentencing changes in the future, which they no doubt will once Congress averts its eye from D.C.

However, if we enact Congressman Donalds' bill, they will not be able to revert to their soft-on-crime ways, which has made D.C. unsafe for people, the millions of people who want to come and visit here and for the residents of this city.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1194, I call up the bill (H.R. 7109) to require a citizenship question on the decennial census, to require reporting on certain census statistics, and to modify apportionment of Representatives to be based on United States citizens instead of all persons, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 measure under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7109 has three components.

Number one, it requires the Census Bureau to include a citizenship question on the decennial census questionnaire.

Number two, the bill directs that this information be used to ensure fair representation by requiring only citizens be included in the apportionment base.

Number three, it has a severability clause.

Currently, the Census Bureau estimates the noncitizen population using data collected annually in the American Community Survey. We are going to call that ACS as I go, just to help you out. That data is not necessarily accurate.

Further, there are no reports that asking a citizenship question on the ACS every year suppresses illegal, alien, or other noncitizen participation on the ACS questionnaire.

The constitutionally iterated rationale for a decennial census is to apportion electoral districts for Congress.

In Commerce v. New York, the Supreme Court noted that a host of various questions over the years that are tangential to apportionment had been included in the decennial censuses, ``race, sex, age, health, education, occupation, housing, and military service,'' and ``radio ownership, age at first marriage, and native tongue,'' et cetera.

The citizenship question is no stranger to the Census questionnaire. Commerce also noted: ``Every Census between 1820 and 2000 (with the exception of 1840) asked at least some of the population about their citizenship or place of birth. Between 1820 and 1950, the question was asked of all households. Between 1960 and 2000, it was asked of about one-fourth to one-sixth of the population.'' That is another quote from the Commerce case.

This isn't a uniquely American practice. Even the United Nations recommends collecting citizenship information via a census, as noted by, again, the Commerce Court. Australia, Canada, France, Indonesia, Ireland, Germany, Mexico, Spain, and the United Kingdom ask about citizenship in their respective censuses.

Is the United States to be the only North American country not to inquire about citizenship in its Census protocols?

The Commerce Court held, regarding the positing of a citizenship question on the Census, as follows: ``In light of the early understanding of and long practice under the Enumeration Clause, we conclude that it permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary [of Commerce], to inquire about citizenship on the Census questionnaire.''

Section 2 of H.R. 7109 simply asks whether a person is a citizen of the United States, yes or no. That is it, but everyone gets counted.

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

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

As my friend knows, the Commerce case held specifically you can ask the citizenship question on the Census. That is true. You can do that. That is what we are proposing.

Additionally, he misstated the rationale on why the Commerce case went the way it did. They said you can ask the question, but that the Secretary had contrived his rationale and was in violation of the APA, and that is why that happened.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, of course, every single Democrat voted against the great border security bill, H.R. 2. That is how serious they are not. Every person is counted under this bill. Why can't we ask them what their citizenship is?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish we were hearing not deflective statements but the actual truth here.

Here is the way it works. There is nothing in this bill that says you don't count everybody. You do count everybody. The thing they really don't want us to know is how many illegal aliens are in the country, so we are going to ask a citizenship question, which has been asked in 22 of 25 Censuses. They don't want that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), who is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to debate here about this. Let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker, I believe that, by far, most Americans would agree with the proposition that those illegally in the United States and noncitizens should not be counted for purposes of creating or modifying congressional legislative districts. That is probably what they think, and that is exactly what section 3 of this bill leads to.

Foreign nationals here legally who have not naturalized and cannot vote in Federal elections, together with illegal aliens who cannot vote in Federal elections, comprise a substantial portion of our population, by some accounts in excess of 15 percent of our populations.

Noncitizens are not evenly distributed among the States, and some States end up with greater representation in Congress based on a higher concentration of noncitizens. Perhaps that is what one New York Congresswoman meant when, in response to a question regarding illegal aliens, she said: ``I need more people in my district just for redistricting purposes.''

The provision of this bill would ensure a fair apportionment based on equal representation of citizens.

Now, my colleague has relied on Evenwel v. Abbott, a case that they relied on wrongfully. Their reliance is totally misplaced.

First of all, they are dealing with State apportionment issues in Evenwel, not Federal, but State. Let's go ahead, and let's see what Justice Ginsburg did. She cited with approval the district court holding in Evenwel that the Supreme Court allows jurisdictions to use any neutral, nondiscriminatory baseline, including total population, when drawing State and local legislative districts.

That has never been overturned, nor did Justice Ginsburg overturn it in Evenwel. In Evenwel, the plaintiffs that came before the Court wanted apportionment based on the citizen voting age population. That is what they were asking for.

Although Evenwel deals with State and local apportionment, we can fairly extrapolate that rationale to Federal apportionment, as well. Justice Ginsburg's holding in Evenwel turns on the idea that voter equality in a district is not required. It is not required. However, she also lays out that neither is it the total population metric that is implied by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That is not required either.

For instance, Justice Ginsburg referred to Burns v. Richardson. In that case, it held that districts may be apportioned on the basis of registered voters or voter-eligible populations, that that is permissible.

In the Burns case, they give the example of Hawaii, which could rationally justify its use of voter-eligible apportionment because of the large number of transients and military personnel it had. The Burns court noted that apportioning using registered voters was permissible because of the conditions in which Hawaii found itself.

Now, what has happened since then? What has happened since then is this administration will admit that 9.2 million illegal aliens have come in under their control. They will also admit that there is another 1.8 million known got-aways. That is 11 million people that the administration will admit to have come in, in 3\1/2\ years. It has distorted the population. It skewed the one-person, one-vote standard, which is the canon upon which the commerce case was founded. It is the one-person, one-vote rule.

Our colleagues on the other side don't want to acknowledge that there is a constitutional basis, as I have just cited, to allow section 3 to go forward, but Democrats are perfectly content with California, which is a sanctuary State, hauling in people. The minority is perfectly content with New York bringing in people through sanctuary policies, or Illinois. That skews exactly what the Founders intended to make straight and clear.

Let's go to the 14th Amendment for just one second to actually read the second part of the 14th Amendment, or get to that. I am not going to read it. The first clause, that is what my colleague across the aisle, Mr. Speaker, has relied on exclusively, but he didn't bother to tell you about the second clause.

In the second clause itself, it deals with every Federal election and every State election for State Governor, judicial body, and State legislatures. What they do there in the second clause of the 14th Amendment is provide a way to reduce apportionment when those individuals may be disqualified.

Mr. Speaker, that is what we are saying here. That is why this bill needs to pass, and I urge a passage.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will say this about the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), that he is right on some points, but he is wrong on some points, as well.

One of them is this: This bill gives money to the States to deal with the calamity that has been caused by the Biden administration.

Mr. Speaker, years ago, Janet Napolitano, who was in the Biden administration in the same position that Secretary Mayorkas is in, demanded that the Federal Government pay for the damages caused by illegal migration at that time. She understood. Just like Katie Hobbs, who is the current Democratic Governor of Arizona, says, we have to have resources. Please understand that you don't understand what is going on on the border.

I will say one thing, that my friend from New York is correct that this is a show vote.

H.R. 2 has been sitting in the Senate. It should have passed. It would have taken care of 90 percent of the problems on the border. I know. I wrote most of those provisions, along with my friend, Chip Roy.

I will tell you this: If we do not pass this, don't come to us if you are living in New York and say you are in trouble because you have perpetuated it.

Mr. Speaker, this is the time to pass this piece of legislation. The process has been crappy, but this is the time to pass this legislation because it has to be done.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, to hear the administration tell it, having to get a warrant is the end of the world.

Well, guess what? In literally any other context in which law enforcement or intelligence agencies want to read an American's communications, they have to get a warrant. That has been the rule for over 200 years, and for 46 years the government has had to get a FISA title I order to read Americans' communications in a foreign intelligence investigation.

These are investigations in which Americans are suspected of terrorism, espionage, cybercrimes--you name it.

Somehow, a warrant or title I requirement is completely consistent with national security in those high-stakes cases, yet the administration and those who are opposed to this amendment allege it will plunge us into a dystopian nightmare if we apply this same basic longstanding protection to section 702 queries where the American often isn't even suspected of any wrongdoing at the time of the query.

I don't buy it, and neither should you.

Over a decade ago, as my friend Mr. Nadler said just a moment ago, a group of intelligence experts unanimously recommended requiring a warrant for U.S. person queries of section 702 data.

That group included Michael Morell, former Acting Director of the CIA, and Richard A. Clarke, former Chief Counterterrorism Adviser to President George W. Bush--bipartisan--recommended the same thing that we have today.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, so let's just consider that the Second Circuit has said that a Fourth Amendment warrant is appropriate, and they haven't finished concluding it. I don't know why Mr. Himes is going to just keep riding off on that, but the Second Circuit is still considering that.

Let's take a look at something else. The U.S. person queries designed to search for communications between Americans and foreigners who happen to be U.S. person targets. That is what we are hearing.

So Mr. Turner says the law already requires a warrant to surveil an American. When he says ``surveil'' what he is talking about is collecting all of an American's communications. In that case, under title I a warrant is required.

A U.S. person query is an attempt to access some of an American's communications, namely, those that are incidentally collected under section 702 and to do so without a warrant. They can do it right now without a warrant.

That is the distinction that we are getting at.

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

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chair, I want to just dovetail on that because my friend from the Intelligence Committee keeps talking about us not being able to look at Hamas or any of these nefarious actors. That is simply inaccurate.

The administration cites multiple examples where using section 702 to monitor foreign targets has provided critical intelligence, but when it comes to warrantless searches for Americans, they can't provide any examples of where they have provided any useful information. Yet, they want to continue to look at U.S. persons' information without a warrant.

Mr. Chair, I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, like all the amendments offered by HPSCI, this amendment drastically expands the scope of FISA. This amendment will actually change the definition of ``electronic communication service provider'' to require a whole new class of businesses and other entities to assist in FISA section 702 surveillance.

When the amendment first came out 1\1/2\ months ago, it caused a massive commotion, as can be imagined. One of the FISA amici did something highly unusual. He went public with a warning. He confirmed that the amendment originally was exactly as broad as it looked, in that it could force hotels, libraries, and coffee shops to serve as surrogate spies because, of course, customers in those establishments might well be engaging in international communications, which would transit over the WiFi equipment in those locations. That was the original.

Therefore, the amendment sponsors threw in an exemption for hotels, libraries, coffee shops and a handful of other establishments, but that hardly solves the problem because the vast majority of U.S. businesses are not exempted. Hence, the amendment would still apply to grocery stores, department stores, hardware stores, barber shops, laundromats, fitness centers, nail salons.

Perhaps most worrisome of all, it would apply to business landlords who rent out office space and provide WiFi for their building. That would include the offices that many of us in this room go to when we are back in our districts, as well as the offices of tens of millions of Americans across the country, offices for lawyers, journalists, nonprofits, and others.

That is how expansive this amendment is. That is why we should defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I have enjoyed all the attention the Biggs-Jayapal-Jordan- Nadler-Davidson-Lofgren amendment has received. It has been flattering that, on every other amendment and the underlying bill, we don't talk about any of that other stuff, and we talk about the warrants.

That gets to the reality of the situation. The intelligence community wants control. They want to continue to have control without any checks.

The Biggs amendment does not require a warrant for the government to surveil foreigners in foreign countries or to incidentally collect the communication of Americans under section 702.

Let me repeat that. The amendment does not require a warrant for the government to surveil foreigners in foreign countries, nor does it require a warrant for incidentally collecting the communications of Americans under section 702. It just doesn't, but that is what was heard.

Instead, it requires that the Federal Government and the spying and surveillance apparatus get a warrant if they want to read an American's communications or query them in the 702 database. That is what the essence of this is.

They don't want to have to get a warrant. They are okay with getting a warrant under title I of FISA, but not under 702 for some reason. It is very odd.

Additionally, not only do they not want to get a warrant, but they want to expand the database and the scope of the Americans that they can scoop up in that database to include, in this particular amendment, virtually every retail outlet in the country, virtually every commercial enterprise in the country, virtually every commercial property in this country, but we don't want to have a warrant if we are going to look into U.S. persons' information. We don't want to do that. After all, that might cause them to actually develop information and investigate further.

Let me tell you something. This underlying bill loses its quality if the Biggs amendment on the warrant amendment doesn't pass.

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

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

Let me tell you what bothers me.

So we know that there is a severe problem with the apparatus of the Federal police state abusing FISA, both section 702 and title I, to use those authorities to surveil and search Americans' private data.

I want nothing more than to put every Member of this body on the record. Do you support the warrant

protections granted under the Fourth Amendment to your constituency? I want everyone on the record on that.

In order to get there, we put at risk this bigger, broader problem because the other amendments made in order will expand that authority before we know we can even curb the authority.

So you are creating another bucket for which you are exposing American citizens--innocent American citizens, 19,000 donors to a political campaign. Don't tell me that all those 19,000 people were in contact with Hamas. They weren't.

The system was abused. That is why we need the warrant requirement. That is why we need the Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act, but we are not even going to be able to consider that.

What I am telling you is we have a conundrum, as my friend from Texas has said, of the Speaker saying we are going to brief you on what NSA, CIA, FBI says, but we are not going to bring in anybody to counter what they say. And we are going to do it in a SCIF so you can't tell the American people.

Well, what I want is: I want accountability. I want accountability to myself and everybody else in this body. That is why I am leaning towards voting for this.

On the other hand, the real question is: Are we going to go ahead and expand the authorities of the Federal police state just because we want a vote?

Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) said that in this bill they were able to successfully reject Republicans' request for spending reductions and rejected Republicans' request for riders. Yet, somehow, the Republicans

are going to vote for that. That is outrageous.

She is right, though. She got the spending. She killed the riders. When I hear that a vote against this is a vote for China, what we really are saying is a vote for this is a vote for Chinese terrorism because we have had over 30,000 illegal aliens from China come across the border with this border policy.

What you are going to get is you are voting actually to speed up the process of redistribution of illegal aliens that come in because that is what the funding is going to go for.

You are talking about beds? Those beds are going to go empty.

Why? Because you are going to ship these people out as soon as they get here. That is what is happening within 24 hours.

So the crimes, the fentanyl death, the terrorist initiatives that are coming our way, you vote for this, you are funding it, you own it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

It is my pleasure to join him in this Special Order to talk about one of the most important existential crises that we face in the country today, and that is our border crisis.

Let's rephrase that. It is the Biden border crisis.

So we have 9 sectors along the southwest border, each one 100 to 150 miles wide and they cover many tens of thousands of miles into the interior.

The Tucson sector, which is now the hot spot in the last 5 months, has had more than 312,000 encounters. In that small area, you have more than 2,000 a day who are being interdicted, and those are the people who surrender. It might be one of the most remote border areas on the southwest border on the Tohono O'odham Reservation at the San Miguel gate.

It might be in Lukeville where, if you were paying attention, Bill Melugin sent to the world video footage from just a few days ago where the cartels had cut a hole in the fence and dozens and dozens of illegal aliens were coming in through that hole.

That is what is happening. What are the numbers? Those are the numbers. The numbers reach into the millions every year.

That doesn't include the got-aways, both known and unknown. What countries are they coming from?

I remember well being down in Yuma, and 25 men of military age came across. I said: Where are you from?

Well, we are from Russia.

We got the Russian interpreter on the phone, those of us from Congress.

Then they said: No, no, we are from Ukraine.

We actually happened to have access to a Ukrainian interpreter.

Then they said: Oh, well, actually we really are from Russia.

I have met them from Mali, Mauritania, Guinea, Burkina Faso. Every country, 180 countries are represented in that pool of people coming into our country illegally.

What are the results? My good friend from Georgia has given you a litany of people who have been basically injured, killed, maimed, robbed, raped by people who have come into this country illegally.

If you were to hear the left, they would tell you, oh, wait a second, you are saying everybody coming across, you are stigmatizing everyone.

No, we are not stigmatizing everyone. What I am telling you is, if these people weren't here who aren't supposed to be here, none of this would have happened. I have friends who have lost children, killed by illegal aliens.

What do Americans think of this? What do Americans think of this? Eighty-five percent of them said this is the most important issue. What do the left do on their little TV shows that few people watch? They laugh. They laugh that anyone would say that that is an issue in Virginia or in Georgia or in Montana or anywhere because they simply don't care about American life.

Mr. Speaker, I join Representative Clyde in calling upon my colleagues, the Republican colleagues, to understand that we have got to demand enforcement from this regime. The way you get it is you actually leverage spending. That is what the Founders gave us.

I call on my colleagues to leverage this minibus, this DHS CR to make sure we get enforcement. I also call upon the Speaker to bring up our border security bills every day, bring one up every day. Let's vote on one every day. Let's give these guys an opportunity to show that they really care about the border.