Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the disaster at our southern border. The grief that has been brought upon the American people in the past 3 years is unspeakable. It was brought on strictly by policy change.

It is the exact same 1,954 miles of border that we had under President Trump. We have the same equipment, the same men, the same women. We are spending more money. We spent $20 billion more last year than we did 3 years ago.

It is not about money. It is not about men or equipment. There is no enhanced desire by the cartels to make money. They traffic human beings and drugs. They have been doing it quite successfully for a long time. We had backed the cartels up very effectively by the time we hit 2019 and 2020 under the Trump administration, under Trump policies.

President Biden, once inaugurated, immediately began flipping those policies. This is what has happened. This is why you have had 12 million illegal crossings in 3 years. This is why you have 300,000 Americans dead, from opioids smuggled into our country across the southern border in the past 3 years. It is the number one cause of death for Americans 18-45 years old. We have never had that in the history of our country. It is drug poisoning. Our sovereignty has disintegrated at the southern border.

This body, the people's House, acted last year. H.R. 2, the strongest border security measure in the history of Congress, was passed in May of last year with Republican votes and delivered to the Senate. There it gathers dust. What we demand of our colleagues in the Senate that are run by the Democratic Party, what we demand from the Democratic- controlled White House is a clean vote on H.R. 2, the border security bill that was passed by the people's House in May of last year, delivered to the Senate in May of last year. We demand a clean vote. Let America see where does the Senate stand on border security. H.R. 2 is the answer for the crisis that we face, the heartache, wave upon wave of human misery that our Nation has suffered for the last 3 years at the southern border. I appreciate this opportunity to address this ongoing disaster, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, due to flight delays and cancellations from my home state of Louisiana, I was unable to be in attendance for votes on the evening of March 11, 2024. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 79 and NAY on Roll Call No. 80.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Arizona for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we truly live in an interesting time in our country when Americans watch this and they see two lone conservative Republicans, two members of the House Freedom Caucus, standing in an empty Chamber discussing some of the most challenging threats we have ever faced as a nation and what might we do.

So I think the answer lies in the simple acknowledgment of the fact that this is not our House. This House belongs to the people, and the people are always present because the people are watching.

Americans are quick to forgive and hesitant to condemn. It is in our nature. It is in our DNA.

Conservative Americans, particularly, find it difficult to believe that our own Federal Government has, in many instances and across several agencies and departments, become quite weaponized against the people in a regular course of events.

Every day, Americans read the headlines about the FBI violation of laws, a DOJ persecution of Americans that does not seem to comply with judicial righteousness. They see our former President's home raided by the FBI, they have friends and neighbors who are raided by the IRS and the ATF or the DOL or the EPA. Americans see this and acknowledge it, but we have been slow to condemn, again, because it is in our nature to be understanding and forgiving, compassionate, and supportive, certainly of some of the most historically admired agencies in the history of our country, like the FBI.

So although we, as a nation, as we look at men like Congressman Biggs and myself, we oppose--how dare we--but we oppose the expansion of police state surveillance. This echoes across the land where gradually America is waking up, and it is certainly time to wake up because we don't have too much time left. We could lose this thing if we don't respond now and act now to protect American individual rights, liberties, and freedoms from an ever-encroaching oppressive government. If we don't act, we will lose this thing.

Men like Andy Biggs and I know that. That is why we are here alone, Mr. Speaker. That is why we cry out on behalf of the Nation that we love.

The moment is coming when Americans across the land from sea to shining sea will say: I understand what is happening, and I condemn it.

That moment is coming when Americans will realize that everything we have stored in the cloud is already in the possession of our FBI, DOJ, NSA, and CIA. That moment of awareness is coming, and conservative constitutionalist Republicans like me and my colleagues in the Freedom Caucus are standing in this moment of time not in opposition to Americans who disagree with us, but in support and love for the Americans whom we swore an oath to, to the freedom and the constitutional rights, the civil liberties, the protected right to travel the land and be secure in our persons, our effects, our papers, and our homes as stated by our Founders.

We stand for that right, and we are not going to allow American freedoms to be run over by out-of-control, rogue operatives within our Federal Government.

So I thank my colleague and friend, Representative Biggs, for allowing me to speak on the floor this day. I support this vigorous debate, and I am confident that America will land on the right side of this thing, so that we can preserve and protect the freedoms that we enjoy in our Republic.

Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleagues across the aisle who have voiced their opposition. It is important that we clarify the legacy that some of us would condemn by impeaching the Secretary responsible for this legacy; and, by contrast, the legacy that my colleagues who oppose the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas will support:

300,000 Americans dead from cartel drugs;

100,000 teenage girls and boys missing, lost by the Mayorkas system into the unspeakable horror of sex slavery networks across the filthiest corners of criminal organizations in our cities;

American sovereignty disintegrated, American soil lost to cartel human and drug trafficking bases;

Millions of single military-aged men from over 100 countries unvetted, released into our country, creeping into every corner of American society, every city, every town;

Our schools overrun by illegals granted free access to American education infrastructure in hundreds of reports with no room left for our children;

Hundreds of thousands of violent criminals released into our Nation, despite Federal law stating that DHS shall detain known criminals who enter America illegally;

A thousand or more known or suspected terrorists allowed to pass freely into the heart of our Nation, into my State, into yours.

This is the legacy of Alejandro Mayorkas. By our oath, we must impeach this man who has presented an arrogant, defiant tone of denial and lies to Congress for 3 years, seemingly content or even proud to destroy America day by day. So it is that on this day, it shall be written in the historical record of the people's House that Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, has been impeached. So shall it be written, so shall it be done.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 8.

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, silence your heart and look into the eyes of this young American. Tomorrow he would have been 101 years old.

On December 8, 1941, for his 19th birthday, he got World War II. Like millions of other young men across the country, when the attack on Pearl Harbor was announced the following day after that fateful morning on December 7, this young man stood up, went and joined the Navy.

The Navy sent him to flight school. He served his country as a pilot in World War II. He died many years later as I held his hand. This man is my father, George Joseph Higgins.

Happy birthday, Dad.

Mr. Speaker, many times in the course of my life as a military police officer and civilian police officer, I have had occasion to say: Calm down, son. I have heard your argument. I feel your passion. I understand your position, but you are about to go too far. Just calm down and step back.

This is what I advise my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do. One of my brothers here, whom I love and respect, he is the man seated here, is making a mistake.

Mr. Speaker, one of the gentleman said we should be held to a higher standard. We are talking about the removal of a Member of Congress. Do we want the American people to believe that the opinions of Congressmen is a higher standard than the deliberate vote of the American people? Is a report from a committee a higher standard than the 2-year election cycle as established by our Founding Fathers and enshrined in our Constitution?

Let's calm down.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken for 7 years to this body here, and very rarely have I had a prepared statement, nor do I today, but I am going to read a letter that I distributed to my Republican colleagues for the benefit of my Democratic colleagues that did not receive a copy of the letter. Perhaps, I am wrong for that. I considered sending you all this letter. I did not, and I apologize for that. The media has gotten it. It is out there. It reads as follows:

``Although I completely respect the work of our colleagues on the Ethics Committee, I have serious concerns about the way this particular case is being handled, and I'll oppose the George Santos expulsion.

``In the 7 years I've been a Member of Congress, many Members have been subject to campaign expenditure ethics investigations. To my recollection, Members have always had the opportunity to settle the matter by restitution, even if they disagreed with the Ethics Committee conclusions. Further, in many prior instances of allegations of misconduct, I recall no massive media release from the Ethics Committee. After a bit of a whispered brush fire, the matter just went away. Maybe the Member left Congress, maybe the Member didn't leave Congress, but they weren't publicly crucified and expelled. The very fact that we have all read the `investigative report' indicates a level of public character assassination that I have not witnessed through four terms of congressional service. It's troubling to me, that a Republican-led Ethics Committee would present itself as so judgmental. Previous Ethics Committee investigations have always been conducted quietly, reflective of our constitutional standards of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Reports of similar allegations of campaign finance violations like family vacations overseas and cosmetic dental procedures and sexual adventures of every sort have not historically been released to the public. This particular Ethics Committee investigation seems to be quite public, and I am not seeing any allowance for the Member to make restitution of alleged campaign finance violations. Full media disclosure, combined with intention to move straight to expulsion, appears weaponized to me.

``Colleagues, you can believe what you like, but the 56-page `Investigative

Subcommittee Report' is most certainly not written within the parameters normally found in an unbiased, impartial investigative report. It's filled with conjecture, opinion, and pejorative language that no professional investigative report should include, no experienced cop would present to a D.A., and no impartial D.A. would ever present to a court as unbiased. You may accept this report as grounds for expulsion from Congress, but I say no. It's not right, the totality of circumstance appears biased, it stinks of politics, and I'll oppose this action in every way. Perhaps my colleagues should step back from expulsion, look in the mirror, reflect upon the long established historical record of congressional behavior, consider the Founders' intent, and let we the people of New York determine their Representative. This report is posing as an objective presentation of fact, yet it is most certainly written with notable disregard for professional objectivity, and it is wrapped in a media incensed public disclosure that any reasonable man can see is the congressional equivalent of a public crucifixion. I'm stunned that Members would cheer for this public shaming and expulsion. It's like witnessing an otherwise fair and compassionate village gather to celebrate the burning of an alleged witch.

``Since the Civil War, only two Members of Congress have been expelled, and both had been convicted in court of Federal crimes. That's the standard, and the House of Representatives should not deviate from that standard. I'm a solid no on expulsion, and I encourage every Member to carefully consider what kind of precedent we are setting.''

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to encourage my colleagues sincerely on both sides of the aisle to step back from this expulsion.

Mr. Speaker, what I ask of my colleagues, again, very respectfully on both sides of the aisle, is to just step back from this moment and reflect upon the sacred right of the American people to determine their representation in our representative Republic. This is not a right that has been enumerated for this Congress.

The American people run this thing. I believe the people of the Third District of New York are quite capable of removing Representative Santos if they choose to do so.

In the history of our Nation, we have never done what we are poised to do. Since the Civil War, two Members of Congress have been removed by expulsion, both having been convicted of Federal crimes. The people of these United States own the sacred right to remove their Representative.

This is reflective of our oath. I say this sincerely to my beloved colleagues, to step back from this egregious act that you have threatened.

Reflect upon the American people that we serve, the oath that we have sworn, and allow the people of New York to cast their vote as they see fit.

Mr. Speaker, I am prayerful that righteousness will, indeed, touch the heart of every Member of Congress in this consideration, just as I am prayerful that righteousness touches the heart as voting Americans across the country determine who their Representative will be.

I have faith that this anointed Nation, touched by the hand of God as our Constitution was debated and developed and the writ thereof was determined, I have faith in that document, and I am prayerful that my colleagues Republican and my colleagues Democrat will grant that sacred right as determined by our Constitution to the people to whom it belongs--in this case, the people of the Third District of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to oppose the expulsion of Representative George Santos.

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

Mr. Chairman, over the past few months a salt mine in my district, Morton Salt's Weeks Island Mine, a salt mine that has been in operation for many, many years, has been unrighteously targeted by the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA.

In particular, there is a singular MSHA inspector who appears to have a personal vendetta. These concerns have been brought to my attention and MSHA's leadership has also been advised. This has been an ongoing issue between MSHA and Morton Salt.

These are justified concerns, yet they have fallen on deaf ears at MSHA. MSHA's handling of this matter isn't just about one company or one mine, I would say to my colleague across the aisle. It is about the integrity of our regulatory institutions and the protection of due process rights.

In this case, the evidence has been brought to me that shows a concerning pattern where enforcement actions may have been influenced by conflicts of interest and retaliatory motives, specifically involving MSHA Inspector Brandon Olivier.

These allegations are not just troubling, they indicate a potential breach of trust. This trust is placed in Congress for the oversight role of our regulatory bodies.

Furthermore, when Morton Salt raised these valid concerns to MSHA's district manager, Mr. William O'Dell, their grievances were seemingly ignored, contributing to a breakdown in the fair and impartial resolution process that should be a cornerstone of our regulatory system.

I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would agree with that general premise. In response to these findings and to ensure accountability within MSHA, I am proposing several amendments.

These are not just punitive measures. They are essential steps toward restoring trust and ensuring that such lapses in judgment and responsibility do not recur.

Amendment No. 2 that we are currently discussing will be reducing MSHA's salary and expense account and redirecting funds to the Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General account.

Mr. Chair, I rise in favor of amendment No. 2. With the cuts in salary that I have offered in amendments 112 and 113, this amendment would reduce MSHA's salary and expense account by $1 million and reallocate it to the Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General, which reflects Congress' commitment to accountability, given issues that have arisen in the Morton Salt case.

Congress should demand ethical enforcement from our agencies. Failures, as in this case, must have oversight and consequences. This reallocation strengthens oversight, enhancing the Inspector General's capacity to investigate and ensure fair, unbiased regulatory actions.

This measure shows Congress' dedication to integrity in Federal institutions, ensuring regulatory bodies like MSHA maintain high standards of conduct.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I respect the gentlewoman's opposition, but I take exception to the nature of the gentlewoman's opposition.

My amendment specifically addresses the health and safety of the American workers within that mine because the health and safety of every American family begins with economic security. To have their jobs threatened by the targeted and vindictive actions and the abused authority of one regulator, and for Congress not to act when this has been brought to our attention, would be truly shameful.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit to the gentlewoman that I am using the mechanisms of Congress constitutionally, specifically to address the health and welfare of the American citizens whom I serve.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of amendment No. 112, which reduces the salary of Mr. Christopher Williamson, Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health Administration, to $1.

This measure reflects our concern over the leadership under which questionable enforcement actions occurred. This is a call for accountability at the highest levels.

Madam Chair, I encourage my passionate and brilliant colleague from Connecticut to consider my words.

This Chamber was built to reflect the highest ideals of individual rights and freedoms. The birth of our Nation, as envisioned by our Founders, included the balance of powers built throughout our government. This Chamber where we stand in the people's House is one- half of a bicameral Congress. We are the legislative branch. We are held accountable by elections and, in extreme cases, by censure or ejection from Congress.

Our judicial branch is filled with judges who are appointed, reviewed, and confirmed by our Senate and held to the highest standards. Our executive branch at the highest levels is accountable by election and, in egregious or extreme circumstances, by impeachment.

However, the bureaucrats, Madam Chair, and I say it to my colleague across the aisle respectfully, the bureaucrats of the executive branch are hardly accountable, save for by action through the power of the purse by Congress.

We have the right to exercise the power of the purse to do things like contract the salary of a rogue executive employee who has abused their authority and thwarted the will of the people. We have not only the right to do so, but we have the obligation to do so.

Reducing the salary of a bureaucrat regulator who has abused their authority is a shot across the bow of oppression.

I have listened respectfully to my colleague oppose every amendment of the Republican majority, and I ask her to respectfully consider how else, Madam Chair, we might control oppressive actions of rogue and abusive bureaucrats from within the executive branch.

They are implanted within our government. They are an army of bureaucrats who are virtually unreachable by standard business procedures. They are very difficult to fire or dismiss. They are insulated by many layers and levels

of civil protection. Reducing the salary of a regulatory agent employee of the executive branch is an effective and constitutionally sound mechanism to control oppression.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of amendment No. 112, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Madam Chair, do I appear to be anything less than very serious? This is a serious body. I come from a humble background. I know what it is to earn a dollar or not. I rise in support of this action because it is the right thing to do.

Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise to speak in favor of amendment 113 of House Rules Committee Print of H.R. 5894.

Amendment 113 reduces the salary of Mr. William O'Dell, the district manager in Dallas, Texas of the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

This action is in direct response to his failure to address the conflict-of-interest concern raised by my constituent, Morton Salt, demonstrating a significant lapse in supervisory responsibility and a willful neglect to perform his duty.

Madam Chair, as I stated earlier, it is our obligation as sworn servants to we the people to protect the individual rights and freedoms of our citizens, and when an executive abuses his authority in our government, he must be held accountable.

This obligation sometimes falls upon the shoulders of Congress and the legal and constitutional mechanism that we have devised in this body, the people's House, to hold a rogue, executive employee, bureaucrat, regulatory agent accountable for actions beyond the pale of defense. The mechanism that we have at our disposal and readily available is the power of the purse.

Every effort by the Republican majority and conservatives amongst our party and our Conference, every effort to employ the Holman rule to contract the salary of an executive employee that has betrayed their oath and abused their authority, every single effort has been thwarted in this House.

It is good, Madam Chair, that the people take note and that the historical record documents the votes of the Members of this body because we, too, shall be held accountable.

The Founders hold us accountable every 2 years by design where a servant in this body could be quickly removed if we do not comply with the will of the people, if we do not always strive to protect the individual rights and freedoms of the people, if we do not uphold the oath that we have sworn.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support amendment 113, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, the Biden administration has been quite focused on destroying the American energy industry. This entire insane focus on allegedly protecting a species of whale in the Gulf of Mexico has been used by the Biden administration to attempt to deeply restrict oil and gas actions in the Gulf of Mexico.

Whales, Mr. Chair. They wanted to stop vessels from moving at night. They wanted to stop vessels from moving over 10 knots. It is insane.

Americans are struggling. Inflation is crushing us. The American energy industry should be unleashed, not oppressed.

I rise in support of Representative Graves' amendment, and I urge all Members to support this amendment in support of an American energy industry that should be dominant worldwide.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, and I thank my colleague for introducing it.

Madam Chair, our history is our history, all of it. We live in an era wherein my Democrat colleagues across the aisle seem to fail to recognize the simple fact that if you are rewriting history, you are rewriting history of this body, and the American people have lost all trust in any kind of sanity coming out of my Democrat colleagues.

From sea to shining sea, taking down statues. How is that working? How is that going, Madam Chair?

Do we have peace in our time? Is our border okay? Is the world not on fire? Do we have more or less racial problems in America today than we did 20 years ago?

It is insane, again, what my Democrat colleagues push.

The confederate soldiers buried in Arlington, shall you remove their bones?

Madam Chair, I support the amendment.

Mr. Chair, the EPA does not need armed agents loaded with attitude rolling up on American citizens trying to mind their own business. This is happening. It is stunning but it is happening. You have armed EPA agents rolling up on our farmers with no warrant. You have two agents emerge from an unmarked car to check the fuel in the saddlebag tanks of diesel trucks with their little strips and proceed to issue $10,000 fines.

Can you imagine, Mr. Chair, your city's code enforcement being pushed by armed agents with attitudes? This is happening in our EPA. It is happening in other alphabet agencies. It is wrong, and we are going to put a stop to it one way or another.

I support my friend's amendment, and I urge all colleagues to step up and push back against the weaponization of our Federal Government against the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague Congressman Good, and I appreciate the words of wisdom of my colleague Ralph Norman.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin with an uplifting statement. God is still on the throne, and we, his humble children, have a responsibility to be worthy of his love and grace and the anointing of what it is to be an American citizen.

Every generation of Americans has risen to face the challenge and threat that our Nation has endured now 240 years.

In our generation, one of the most insidious threats that we face is the degree of debt that we have allowed, in my generation, our Nation to assume. We now face a $33 trillion debt. That is $33,000 billion.

Mr. Speaker, if this body were to balance the budget--which is our goal, by the way. It is why we are here tonight addressing this Chamber and the Nation that we love, standing shoulder to shoulder with each other so that our words are forever inscribed on the historical record of our country, that some stood to fight for the future of our Republic, to restore fiscal sanity to this body.

Were this body to produce a balanced budget and we were to run a $1 billion surplus, Mr. Speaker, it would require 33,000 years to address a $33 trillion debt with a $1 billion surplus, and 1 billion is 1,000 million.

Every American has imagined, well, what would I do if I had a million dollars? I would pay off my house, settle my debts, take care of my family, build mother-in-law a house. I would set aside some money for my children and my grandchildren. I would bring generational growth to my family if I won the lottery and had a million dollars.

In this town, we throw around trillions like it is nothing. Every dollar that we spend in deficit every year is put upon our grandchildren. Is this reflective of anointed value that our

Lord has bestowed upon us as American citizens?

As we stand beneath the glory, Mr. Speaker, of one flag, we are ultimately one people. The challenge of this generation and this body and this majority party, this Republican Party, an honor that I wield not upon my lapel but within my heart of what it is to be a conservative constitutionalist Republican American citizen, I stand in the body that is responsible to correct course that our Nation has taken up.

Mr. Speaker, it was 1980 before America had accumulated $1 trillion of debt. Since then, we have added $32 trillion of debt.

It took 200 years to accumulate $1 trillion of debt, and now we have $33 trillion. It is unsustainable, so we are demanding a correction of course because our Nation is headed precipitously to a fiscal cliff beyond which we may never recover as a Nation.

We love our country enough that we are willing to stand and fight for the future of our Republic. If it makes some of my colleagues uncomfortable, oh, well.

If you are willing to participate in the change of spending trajectory that this generation is required to produce, then stand with us. If not, if you don't quite have the courage, at least get out of our way. If you oppose us, prepare for a fight.

We love our country enough to stand in this Chamber and make some noise about the debt that we have accumulated and the deficit spending that we continue to add.

Perhaps my colleague, Congressman Good, has a comment to share with the Speaker regarding the difference between our national debt and our annual deficit and how quickly we are adding to our debt at a rate that has never been seen in our history.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation can still succeed, reflective of the will of the people that we have sworn to serve. What we require in order to deliver is not an imagined, unreachable goal or an unreasonable demand. What we require of our Republican colleagues is that they embrace the core principles upon which the Republican Party has been built. Just stand upon the core principles that they claim to possess and help us save our country from bankruptcy.

We have the power of the purse. May I say with respect to my colleagues in the Senate, the Founders knew what they were doing when they created a bicameral Congress. If they wanted a unicameral Congress, they would have had one. That was stated last night at our Freedom Caucus meeting, words of wisdom spoken.

We are the House of Representatives. We are the voice of we, the people. We control the Nation's wealth or squander it. We have reached a point that is untenable to continue.

We ask our brothers and sisters, the most conservative rank of our conference, the Freedom Caucus, all of whom we respect, we ask the Speaker, whom we elected, to stand with the conservative voice that is itself reflective of the voice of the people we have sworn to serve, let us change the trajectory of spending across our 12 appropriations bills which are filled with

conservative policy that is transformative for our Nation if we can pass those bills. Let us join and stand as one and pass those bills reflective of our agreement at 2022 spending levels, and in some cases pre-COVID 2019 spending levels.

None of us here, Mr. Speaker, would stand and say that the Federal Government was too small in 2019 or didn't spend enough money in 2022. All we ask is a reasonable adjustment to the trajectory of spending. This is why we are speaking to you tonight, Mr. Speaker, and we ask that our voices be heard respectfully by our colleagues. Let us save our Republic.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Norman and Congressman Good.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend votes due to an obligation in my home state of Louisiana. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 365, and YEA on Roll Call No. 366.

Mr. Speaker, my, my, my. My colleagues across the aisle say we have a short memory. We don't have a short memory. This has seemed like an eternity over the last 2 years. We had no idea, as a nation, that this much injury could be brought upon our country in this short period of time.

H.R. 2 is the strongest border security package that has ever been brought to the floor in this body. Why has the majority party, the Republicans that were elected to power by the American people last year, drafted this bill over the course of the last year carefully and strategically? Because we are responding to the total collapse of our sovereignty at the southern border brought upon America by my colleagues across the aisle.

If you want more of what you see on the TV today, then by all means America can support my Democratic colleagues and their policies because those are the policies that have brought this disaster upon our Nation. H.R. 2 addresses it aggressively.

Our southern border is no longer a sovereign border wherein America controls the northern portion and Mexico controls the southern. It is now a theater of engagement controlled by the cartels. H.R. 2 corrects it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand in support of H.R. 2 because it addresses aggressively the injury that our Nation suffers brought upon us by weak, disastrous policies out of the Democratic executive branch, the White House, and Democratic majority control for the last 4 years.

Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of H.R. 2.

Mr. Speaker, my electronic voting system malfunctioned and I was unable to submit my vote in a timely manner. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 112.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 22.

personal explanation