Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas and the gentlewoman from Oregon for their bipartisan support of this measure, and I want to assure the gentlewoman from Oregon that the land exchange that she had suggested in Yosemite will not happen.

The Ackerson Meadow Land Interchange Act is a simple proposal to transfer administrative jurisdiction over approximately 160 acres of national forestland to Yosemite National Park, and then it would transfer approximately 170 acres of National Park System land to be a part of the Stanislaus National Forest.

Senator Padilla is carrying identical legislation in the Senate. We don't agree on much, but we certainly agree on this.

This legislation addresses a familiar problem in Federal land management in the Sierra Nevada, the checkerboard boundary lines that make land management disjointed and inefficient. This bill simply consolidates land jurisdictions between the National Park System and the National Forest System, without increasing the Federal footprint.

At issue is Ackerson Meadow. This meadow supports livestock grazing operations that have been part of the history and economy of this region for generations. These operations are essential for brush control and fire suppression, maintaining meadow conditions, and sustaining the rural economy that depends on the productive use of these lands.

Federal agencies, conservation organizations, and local ranchers have all worked together to improve the meadow while maintaining grazing opportunities.

Restoration projects have improved wetland conditions, enhanced water storage, improved habitat, and supported continued public uses, including grazing.

The proposed land exchange would make that cooperative approach easier by eliminating the confusion caused by split jurisdiction. Ranchers need to know where their permits apply, where infrastructure can be maintained, and who is responsible for decisions affecting their operations.

The bill also protects existing rights and authorizations. It specifically provides that valid existing rights, including rights-of- way, easements, leases, licenses, and permits remain protected after the transfer. This ensures that current users, including grazing permit holders, are not unfairly disrupted by a change in administrative jurisdiction.

It also appropriately maintains Federal responsibilities for hazardous substance cleanup and other obligations.

This bill reflects a principle that should guide Federal land policy. Management decisions should be based on the realities of the landscape and not simply of the boundaries drawn on a map decades ago.

Our national forests and parks serve many purposes. They preserve wildlife habitat, protect watersheds, provide recreation, and support rural economies. A balanced approach recognizes all of these values.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of H.R. 8454.

Mr. Speaker, when Tim Walz said that one man's socialism is another man's neighborliness, he got it completely backward. There is only one way to prosper in a capitalist society. You have to figure out what somebody else needs and get it for them better than they can get it for themselves. That might mean mowing their lawn. It might mean doing brain surgery on their child, but whatever it is, you have to help your neighbor.

Socialism is the opposite. It is taking by force what one person has earned by helping others and giving it to someone who has not. If I take a dollar from Peter and give it to Paul, I have helped Paul in the amount of one dollar and I have hurt Peter by that very same amount.

What I have really done is to rob both of them of one dollar's incentive of helping each other. Paul no longer needs to help Peter for his dollar and Peter no longer profits from helping Paul.

Freedom requires very little force because people are free to act according to their own needs and judgment and to prosper for their own talents and labor.

Socialism requires crushing government force because it must compel people to act against their own interests.

In a free society, every person gets to vote every day with every dollar they spend on what the society will produce, who will produce it, and how much they are willing to pay, all voluntarily.

In a socialist society, elites make those decisions for the people and then impose them on the people by force.

In a free society, every transaction benefits both parties by definition. In a socialist society, every transaction benefits one party while it hurts the other.

The lesson of history comes down to four words: Freedom rocks. Socialism sucks.

Mr. Chairman, I think we can all agree that this is not what a budget resolution should be used for, but, unfortunately, necessity commands it.

Reconciliation gives us a powerful tool to bring mandatory spending in line with revenues. Unfortunately, the exigencies that we face have left us with no choice but to use this process to assure that we can replenish our arsenals and strengthen the integrity of our elections.

The minority Democrats have vowed to obstruct these necessities in the Senate at a time when we are at war with Iran and at a time when public confidence in our election process is at an all-time low.

Reconciliation, which this solution sets in motion, is the only path that we can take to achieve these vital measures. I regret the circumstances that force us to employ reconciliation for this purpose, and I pray for the day when Congress fulfills its legal duty to enact a real budget resolution that sets our country back on the road to fiscal health.

Mr. Speaker, on the eve of our Nation's 250th birthday, Zohran Mamdani sat at George Washington's desk and painted a dystopian picture of America: an oligarchy based on exploitation, discrimination, nativism, and bondage.

Stripping away the anti-American rhetoric, he seemed to make three general points: First, that America is so racist and xenophobic that many insist it ``belongs only to those with the right accent or the right shade of skin.'' Yet, even as he spoke these words, foreign soccer fans with every accent and skin shade flooded social media to tell of their delight at the openness, hospitality, prosperity, happiness, abundance, and big-heartedness of middle America.

Indeed, America welcomes more foreign immigrants than any other country in the world, but we insist that those who come to America do so with a sincere desire to become loyal Americans, to adopt a common language, a common culture, and a common appreciation of American constitutional principles and traditions, and to raise their children to revere and appreciate this country. It is called assimilation. It is why we have immigration laws. That is the only way to build one great Nation and one great people from all the nations and people of the world.

Illegal immigration destroys that process. Mamdani, like so many on the left, obstruct our immigration laws and vilify those who enforce them. Yet, if we don't enforce our immigration laws, then we have no immigration laws. Without immigration laws, we have no border. Without a border, we have no country. Is it possible Mamdani does not understand this or is this his ultimate aim?

His second point is that American exceptionalism derives not from the principles of liberty proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, but, rather, that these principles can be exchanged for others, and Mr. Mamdani has one in mind--socialism.

However, freedom and socialism are two antithetical and incompatible things. Our fundamental natural rights as human beings come to us either from God or from government. If from God--the right to chart our own course through life, develop our own talents, supply our own industry, and enjoy the fruit of our own labors--they are a birthright and are inalienable.

If these rights come from government, then they can be extended or withdrawn at the whim of those in power. Mr. Mamdani and his friends will decide how much you may earn, where and how you can live, which groups will receive the favors of government and which will be denied them, who must live under the law and who can live above it, even the temperature that you must set your thermostat.

Wherever the socialists take control, we see this fundamental change, and there is nothing exceptional about it. It is the consistent product of socialist regimes: confiscatory taxes, chronic shortages of basic necessities, rampant homelessness, rising crime, bitter racial strife, failing schools, shuttered businesses, and ultimately, fleeing families.

His third point is that our founding principles create inequalities so vast that in America ``children go to sleep hungry, while the world's first trillionaire hungers for more.''

Well, no one starves in America. Indeed, the poorest Americans today are wealthier than the vast majority of mankind. Yes, in America extraordinary individuals, including legal immigrants, can achieve extraordinary success. The left loves to dehumanize them as oligarchs. Their vast fortunes were made because consumers found value in their products and freely bought them. They have provided mankind with quantum leaps in technological progress that in turn produced the jobs and goods and services that provide Americans with a prosperity and standard of living unparalleled throughout the world. As John F. Kennedy reminded us: ``A rising tide lifts all boats.''

The true oligarchs are the socialists who use the power of government to plunder the earnings of productive Americans in order to enrich themselves and their acolytes. As Winston

Churchill warned: ``The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.''

Mr. Speaker, if America follows Mr. Mamdani, it will not be the first civilization to succumb to the siren song of a benevolent, all-powerful government, but every civilization that has done so has awakened one morning to discover that the benevolence is gone and that the all- powerful government remains.

The American Founders feared that one day a generation might emerge that has lost the memory of freedom. Let that not be the legacy of our generation.

Mr. Speaker, a full-court press is being waged in the media to bring back Yosemite Valley's restrictive reservation system. Viral videos of crowds on Memorial Day now stoke this movement.

Those complaining of crowds during peak weekends, of course, envision that they should be able to enter the park, but not all those pesky other people.

Here is a helpful tip: If you don't like crowds, don't go to the beach on Memorial Day and don't go to Yosemite on Memorial Day.

In a series of articles in the San Francisco Chronicle, these critics have gone so far as to advocate resurrecting the radical Yosemite General Management Plan. It would have ultimately banned all traffic from the park and required visitors to stop nearly 50 miles away, pack up the kids, the binkies, the blankies, and the backpacks, and then take a government bus more than an hour in order just to set foot in Yosemite Valley.

They also favor the so-called Merced River Plan that tried and partially succeeded to eliminate many of the amenities available in the valley, including bicycle and raft rentals, horseback riding rentals, gift and snack shops, swimming pools, and iconic facilities, including the ice skating rink at Curry Village, the Art Center, and a historic stone bridge that dates back to the 1920s.

These elitists now press to restore the disastrous reservation system that greatly inconvenienced park visitors throughout 2024. To them, these restrictive measures are the cure to crowds. Yet, to the public, the reservation system meant that an average of 700 cars a day, filled with families that had driven hours to enjoy a day at Yosemite, were turned away at the gates for lack of reservations.

Meanwhile, inside the park, parking lots sat half empty. Hotel reservations fell thousands short, and many tourists who booked a room outside the park were refused entry at the gates for want of a coveted registration. Frustrated would-be visitors reported continuing problems trying to obtain reservations on a glitchy website.

Now, this is not to say that crowding in the valley hasn't been a big problem, but the solution is better management and more capacity, not restricting access.

Before the 1997 flood, there were about twice as many parking places, rooms, and campsites as there are today. Although Congress appropriated funds to restore this capacity, it never was.

A succession of incompetent superintendents tolerated inefficient admissions and time-consuming transactions that often produced long lines at the gates. When gateway community representatives approached park managers for relief, their many suggestions and pleas were simply ignored.

Under Yosemite's new superintendent, Ray McPadden, these deficiencies are finally being addressed. He is instituting a large number of improvements that have been advocated by the gateway communities for a decade, and he is meeting regularly with local representatives, businesses, and residents.

To address gate delays, he has introduced digitized entry passes and installed WiFi to expedite admissions.

To decongest the valley, he is promoting and encouraging visitors to enjoy often overlooked features, like Tuolumne Meadows, Mariposa Grove, Glacier Point, and Tenaya Lake. He is adding long-overdue additional parking and will be using real-time data this summer to relieve traffic congestion.

Last weekend, the Secretary of the Interior and the superintendent met with local elected and business representatives. To a person, they opposed the reservations system and endorsed the measures now being undertaken to improve the visitor experience.

The Yosemite Grant of 1864 was the first time that Federal land was set aside for the enjoyment of the American people. In the original words of the act, that was done with the promise that lands would ``be held for public use, resort, and recreation.''

This led to the creation of the National Park Service with the express purpose ``to conserve the scenery and the natural and historical objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment'' of the same. Well, the environmental left would change ``use, resort, and recreation'' to: Look, but don't touch.

John Muir once wrote: The valley is filled with people, yet they do not annoy me. Not so the green left, which has tried for many years to reduce visitor services and restrict public access. The 750,000-acre national park can welcome many more visitors than it does today. All that has been lacking is a visitor-friendly attitude by Yosemite Park management and a willingness to be a good neighbor to the gateway communities and businesses that depend on tourism. With Yosemite's new management, that day has finally come.

Mr. Speaker, for 4 years, Democrats actively encouraged the largest illegal mass migration in history, including the most vicious criminals in the world. For the last year, these same Democrats have done everything they can to obstruct, impede, and even attack Federal officers who are trying to enforce our immigration laws.

Without CBP and ICE enforcing our immigration laws, we have no borders, which means we have no country. That is the effect, if not the design, of the Democrats' refusal to fund these agencies.

This bill breaks the Democrats' stranglehold over ICE and CBP funding. Reconciliation is specifically designed to bring mandatory spending in line with limits set by the budget resolution. Instead, we have no choice but to use it to restore the security of our Nation.

We will have one more shot at reconciliation for the coming fiscal year, and it must be used to fulfill our responsibility to future generations who are already drowning in our debt.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1689.

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

Mr. Speaker, for 4 years, our Nation suffered the largest illegal, mass migration in history at the hands of the Democrats. The cost to our country is immense: hospitals overrun with illegals demanding care; food pantries and homeless shelters overwhelmed; classrooms packed with non-English speaking students; rampant child, sex, and labor trafficking; hundreds of thousands of Americans dead from fentanyl overdoses; suppressed wages for working families; billions in welfare costs to support this population; and, worst of all, the introduction of the most violent criminals and criminal gangs and cartels in the world into our communities.

President Trump reversed these ruinous policies simply by enforcing our existing immigration laws. Illegal border crossings immediately plunged more

than 95 percent. The largest illegal mass migration in history is now being followed by the largest legal deportation in history, although the Democrats are doing everything they can to obstruct it.

One aspect of this deliberately engineered nightmare was the abuse of so-called temporary protected status. It proved Ronald Reagan's maxim that there is nothing more permanent on this Earth than a temporary government program.

Now, as its name implies, temporary protected status is supposed to provide temporary residency to legal aliens who happened to be visiting here when a disaster in their own country temporarily prevented their safe return. The Democrats turned this temporary program into an open- ended and unconditional invitation for aliens to illegally enter our country and then remain indefinitely.

Under Biden, the number of TPS beneficiaries nearly quadrupled in just 4 years as aliens illegally entered our country in order to claim this status.

The Immigration and Nationality Act not only gives the President the power to extend temporary status as Biden did, it also gives the President the power to withdraw that status when it is no longer applicable or in the interests of our country, as this President has done.

Barack Obama granted temporary protected status to Haitian nationals in this country when Haiti suffered an earthquake in 2010. For 16 years, this status has persisted in different iterations, including multiple designations, redesignations, and extensions.

During the Trump administrations, the Department of Homeland Security has attempted to end this temporary status for Haiti, noting that allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to reside in our country indefinitely is counter to our national interests. The vast majority of these TPS beneficiaries under Biden did not enter the country legally only to find themselves stranded by unfortunate events, rather they entered our country illegally to claim such status, encouraged, aided, and abetted by the Democrats in power.

Indeed, as the House Judiciary Committee documented in a report early last year, of the roughly 340,000 Haitian TPS holders, 312,000, 91 percent, came to the United States illegally. Their reward for committing this crime was a work permit and indefinite protection from deportation; and, yes, illegal entry into this country is a Federal crime.

Abuses like these allowed the TPS program to balloon from roughly 410,000 when Biden took office to nearly 1.5 million aliens from 16 different countries by the day he left office.

As the number of aliens with TPS skyrocketed, American communities such as Logansport, Indiana; Springfield, Illinois; and Charleroi, Pennsylvania, cried out for help. Charleroi's population of 4,000 swelled to 7,000 almost overnight as a flood of Haitian nationals took up residence.

The little town was forced to spend $400,000 for English language instructors and $1 million overall just to support the influx of students. This was all taken from the resources that would otherwise have been available to their own students.

Our Immigration, Integrity, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee took testimony last year from a local official there, who told us of severe strains on housing, medical care, education, emergency services, law enforcement services, and other social services. He testified to a dramatic increase in traffic collisions and citizens of this peaceful, small town now afraid to walk the streets.

The Trump administration has heeded the cries of the American people. Since taking office, the President has moved to withdraw TPS status for foreign nationals whose conditions no longer warrant such status. In other cases, the Trump administration has determined that these TPS designations are simply not in our Nation's self-interest.

These decisions are clearly provided for under the Immigration and Nationality Act, but today my Democratic colleagues argue that we should ignore all of this, that we should return to the Biden administration's immigration policies, starting with Haitian TPS. If this bill passes, I think we can expect TPS status to be extended to the millions more who wish to exploit our country and its taxpayers.

Americans will not soon forget the image of thousands of illegal aliens from Haiti pouring across the southwest border and crowding under the bridge in Del Rio, Texas. Put simply, this bill would serve as de facto amnesty for hundreds of thousands of aliens from Haiti who illegally poured across our southern border. America does not need to relive that nightmare, and that is a choice.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman tells us that Haitian TPS recipients contribute to our society. Well, no doubt some do. Overall, though, nearly 53 percent of Haitian households are on at least one major welfare program. Let me repeat that so that it sinks in. More than half of Haitian households are on welfare. That means they are taking from our society, not contributing to it.

Indeed, an exhaustive study in 2017 estimated that the average illegal immigrant costs taxpayers between $87,000 and $110,000 to support over a lifetime. That is a net drain after you account for the taxes that they pay. That is a minimum $27 billion cost to American taxpayers to maintain this population.

We are told many Haitian nationals fill healthcare jobs. Well, yes, they take healthcare jobs that would otherwise be filled by Americans. If Americans aren't taking those jobs, it is because cheap, migrant labor is suppressing wages in those sectors. That is why working families lost ground under the Biden administration.

As our immigration laws are enforced, wages for working families are again beginning to rise. This bill takes us a giant step backward for Americans, and that shouldn't surprise anyone who saw the Democrats' reaction on this floor when President Trump suggested that the first responsibility of this government should be to help Americans, not illegal immigrants.

Mr. Speaker, I am now honored and pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman said that Haitian TPS holders all entered this country through the front door legally. That is simply untrue. Yes, about 9 percent entered legally on visas; 91 percent entered illegally.

She tells us that Haiti is a dangerous place, and, therefore, our country must accept every Haitian who can illegally enter our country and then stay indefinitely.

Haiti isn't the only dangerous country in the world. Do the Democrats seriously argue that this is grounds for TPS for the hundreds of millions of people around the world who live in dangerous environments? This is absurd.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gill).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman tells us that we have no choice as a

matter of humaneness but to accept these refugees into our

country who are fleeing danger. This is the only refuge

that they have.

That is simply not true. Bill Melugin of FOX News was at the border in 2021 when 15,000 Haitians bum-rushed our border. He just tweeted out his recollection of the events, and let me read them to you:

``Many of them later discarded their IDs and paperwork showing they had been living and working in South American countries for years (mostly Chile) as they prepared to make fraudulent asylum claims. Their documents were all over the ground. We collected many of them.''

They are not seeking refuge in the United States because they had already found refuge in other countries. They came here to exploit our system, an exploitation that the Democrats insist on aiding, abetting, and encouraging.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

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

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

Again, the Democrats tell us that Haiti is a dangerous place, and I have news for them: Most of the world's population lives in dangerous places.

Do the Democrats seriously argue that Americans are obligated to admit hundreds of millions of people living in those dangerous places into the United States and then support them?

That appears to be their policy, and that certainly is what we have seen from them whenever they have taken power. It is what happens when governments become corrupt and refuse to protect innocent citizens from violent predators who roam the streets.

This should come as no surprise to Americans living in blue cities where leftist DAs refuse to prosecute dangerous criminals and prefer to release dangerous, criminal illegal aliens back onto our streets rather than turn them over to ICE to be removed from our country.

That is what comes when you allow hundreds of thousands of unvetted illegal aliens into our country from violent and lawless societies like Haiti.

Yes, many of these people are fleeing these conditions. Many others are creating them. Why would you allow the latter into our country to create the same violence and lawlessness?

That is why we have immigration laws: to separate out the good from the bad. There are good and bad in every community, but we need to keep the bad out. That is what the Democrats seek constantly to undermine.

This argument not only flies in the face of common sense, but it makes a mockery of the entire temporary protected status provisions of our immigration law. The law was designed to ensure that foreign nationals legally in our country, who are prevented from returning home because of temporary conditions, could remain here until those conditions have abated.

That law was never envisioned to allow aliens fleeing those conditions to seek permanent residence in America by illegally entering our country. Yet, that is precisely what the Democrats are turning this program into with this bill today.

If we don't enforce our immigration laws, we have no immigration laws. If we have no immigration laws, we have no border. If we have no border, then we have no country.

This bill makes a mockery of a program meant to provide temporary refuge for legal residents. This temporary status for Haitians has now gone on for 16 years. Ninety-one percent of these TPS holders are not legal visitors temporarily stranded in our country. Rather, they are illegal aliens who broke our laws specifically to benefit from TPS status.

The vast majority entered illegally during the Biden era of open borders. They overwhelmed local communities. Among this population came violent criminals who we can only count as they commit heinous atrocities like the one we saw in Fort Myers just 9 days ago.

When the President asked the Democrats to stand if they agreed that the first duty of the American Government is to protect the American people and not illegal aliens, not one of them stood. It shouldn't surprise us that they now bring this bill as the first step toward returning to the open-border policies of the Biden administration.

America, take heed. As this debate has once again made painfully clear, if the Democrats return to power, their first order of business will be to reopen our borders and allow the illegal mass migration into this country to continue. We can expect temporary protected status to become permanent protected status for every nationality the Democrats favor on the thinnest of pretexts. They have repeatedly made their intentions clear: to continue the ruinous open-border policies of the Biden administration.

I, for one, reject that bleak, lawless, impoverished, and violent future. I ask the House to reject it as well by rejecting this, the first in a long line of Democrat open-border bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1115, I call up the bill (H.R. 4638) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that an alien who has been convicted of harming animals used in law enforcement is inadmissible and deportable, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4638.

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

Mr. Speaker, Freddie is a 5-year-old male beagle that was found on the side of a Georgia road and adopted into the USDA's detector dog program.

In August 2023, Freddie began his current job as a CBP agriculture detector dog at Dulles International Airport. He and his handler, Melissa Snyder, worked the early-morning flights arriving primarily from Central America and Africa. As of late last year, Freddie had conducted more than 590,000 searches, resulting in more than 2,000 alerts that led to more than 1,800 seizures of prohibited agricultural products and almost 2,500 different pieces of quarantined material.

Mr. Speaker, it was during this important work last June when Freddie alerted to luggage on a flight from Egypt. While Agent Snyder questioned the owner, this man violently kicked Freddie with sufficient force to lift Freddie off of the ground. Freddie suffered contusions to his right forward rib area. He was taken off duty for 2 weeks to recover.

It turns out that the Egyptian national was smuggling 117 pounds of meat and produce which were prohibited from entering the United States.

In the same month as Freddie's attack, leftist protesters in Los Angeles physically attacked horses used by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department for crowd control during an anti-ICE riot. Horses are used extensively by Federal agencies for crowd control and also for access to remote areas along the border frequented by human and drug traffickers.

Mr. Speaker, Congressman Calvert brings us this simple bill that says that if you are convicted of harming a law enforcement animal or you admit to doing so while you are a guest in our country, you will be immediately expelled and never be allowed to return.

It is true that we have good laws to punish such animal cruelty, and yes, such assaults can be defined as moral turpitude to bar admission. Yet, as we have discussed before on this floor, that finding can often require Byzantine legal proceedings that eat up many years and thousands of dollars of resources, if they are pursued at all.

Mr. Speaker, I know many of our Democratic colleagues support the border policies of the Biden-Harris administration, which encouraged the largest illegal mass migration in history. They allowed members of the world's most violent criminal gangs and cartels into our communities, suppressed American workers' wages, and cost taxpayers an estimated $160 billion a year to support.

I know that many are now vigorously and, in some cases, violently opposing the enforcement of our immigration laws under the Trump administration. They can't change these laws, so they seek to obstruct their enforcement and attack, harass, and threaten the law enforcement officers who are upholding them.

Some Democratic State and local officials have even revived the disgraced doctrine of nullification that we all

thought had died with the Confederacy in order to defy Federal law.

There is a deep and irreconcilable divide between our parties that only the voters ultimately can resolve, but can't we at least all agree that kicking a 5-year-old beagle at an airport should disqualify a foreign national from entering our country ever again? That is the entire two-paragraph bill, and I hope we can put aside our differences and all support it.

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

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

I can't blame the ranking member for wanting to talk about everything except the bill before us.

I would simply remind him that this House has repeatedly voted to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. Every Republican in this House voted to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. It was the Democrats who have consistently opposed these bills and are holding them hostage in the United States Senate.

Why? Because they want us to stop enforcing our immigration laws, the laws that Congress itself enacted. If they don't like these laws, they should work to change them. They are serving in the very institution that writes these laws. Instead, they block funding for the Department of Homeland Security at a particularly vulnerable time in our Nation's history, and they attack the officials who are valiantly working to enforce those laws to keep us safe.

We have one Democratic Member of this House who is being prosecuted for assaulting an ICE officer, another deliberately doxed an ICE officer to a violent mob which then attacked that officer and sent him to the hospital. It shouldn't surprise us that they would oppose this bill to protect law enforcement animals. As the President observed a few weeks ago, these people really are crazy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the author of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to stray too far from the topic, but I have to remind the gentlewoman that inflation peaked at over 9 percent under the Biden administration, specifically because of the massive spending bills that the gentlewoman supported.

Every dollar that you held the day that Joe Biden took office, Mr. Speaker, was worth just 79 cents the day he

left office 4 years later. This administration is bringing inflation down, and real working wages are rising once again.

Now the Democrats have told us: Don't worry, this is already covered by the catchall ground for moral turpitude.

However, moral turpitude is in the eye of the beholder. It often requires years of lengthy litigation.

The whole purpose of this bill is to take those years of litigation, delays, and appeals and make a simple and clear statement to every guest in our country: If you are convicted of or you admit to harming a law enforcement officer, you are out of here, and you are not coming back. The act itself is defined as disqualifying for entering or staying in our country. You still have to be convicted of that act or admit to that act, so you either have your day in court with all the due process rights, or you waive those rights by admitting to the act. However, once you have done so, there is no further room for interpretation or delay.

What is so hard for the Democrats to admit that a person shouldn't kick a dog and expect to remain a guest in this country?

Democrats also tell us that this bill would require a conviction for harming an animal before the provisions of this law can take effect.

Listen carefully, Mr. Speaker. The bill does either require a conviction or an admission of guilt. It is the admission that is something that the Democrats just accept.

Let me put it to them as plainly as I can: An admission of guilt is an admission of guilt. This isn't something just blurted out in their sleep. There are already many offenses that fall under the same process, and the standards are rigorous.

The alien's admission has to be explicit, unequivocal, and unqualified. The immigration judge has to find that the admission fits within the relevant statutes and that the admission is based on reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.

Nothing in this bill denies the alien due process. They can either go to trial or they can waive their right to due process by admitting guilt.

The Democrats clearly aren't interested in due process. They are interested in gumming up the process so that aliens can remain in this country even after such a patently reprehensible act as kicking a 5- year-old beagle that is assisting law enforcement.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, nothing in this bill prevents a miscreant from being convicted and punished for their actions. What it does is simply removes the years of delay that can prevent the deportation of an alien after they have been fined or incarcerated if they are charged.

Under Democratic sanctuary laws, I would remind us, the criminal aliens

who are incarcerated, instead of being turned over to ICE for deportation, are released back on our streets. That is the whole point of these sanctuary laws.

Mr. Speaker, it shocked the country when not a single Democrat would rise on the floor to affirm that the first duty of the Federal Government is to protect American citizens and not illegal aliens.

It mystified us when not a single Democrat would rise on the floor to acknowledge families devastated by heinous crimes committed by illegal aliens.

It shocked us when not a single Democrat would rise on the floor even to honor our war heroes or the U.S. hockey team.

It should astonish us that the Democrats could oppose a simple bill that says if a guest in our country harms a law enforcement animal, like a 5-year-old beagle or a horse, they are no longer welcome here and need to leave.

On reflection, I shouldn't be surprised. After all, the Democrats are strangely tolerant of protesters kicking, punching, and attacking ICE officers as they enforce the very laws that Congress has enacted.

So, what is an injured dog to them as long as the perpetrator is a foreign national? What is an injured dog to them as long as they are injured enforcing laws that the Democrats don't like?

This isn't just about Freddie the beagle. It is about whether we will tolerate violent predators imported into our country. If they will kick a dog in the presence of a law enforcement officer, you can be sure they will do far worse when that law enforcement officer isn't present or the victim is a defenseless girl on a subway.

Do we want such people in our country? The Democrats do; the Republicans don't. A time for choosing is approaching. Until then, we will have this vote, which should be revealing as Americans consider their future.

Mr. Speaker, I include the CBO cost estimate for this bill in the Record.

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

Madam Speaker, Pursuant to House Resolution 1115, I call up the bill (H.R. 1958) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify that aliens who have been convicted of defrauding the United States Government or the unlawful receipt of public benefits are inadmissible and deportable, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1958.

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

Madam Speaker, for years, Republicans on the Committee on the Judiciary have sounded the alarm about the costs of the Democrats' open-border policies on our schools, hospitals, homeless shelters, food banks, law enforcement, and American wages.

What we are now discovering is that many within these populations immediately set out to rob our country of literally billions of dollars paid by American taxpayers to help needy Americans.

Worse still, evidence is now emerging from whistleblowers that this was done while Democratic officials in sanctuary jurisdictions deliberately turned a blind eye to industrial-scale larceny in exchange for political support.

We have already heard from TSA agents who watched helplessly as Somali immigrants brazenly shipped millions of dollars out of this country in their carry-on luggage while alarms to the Biden-Harris administration were simply ignored.

We have heard audio recordings of these criminals discussing with Minnesota's Democratic attorney general how they had each other's backs. We have heard whistleblowers tell us their warnings to Minnesota's Governor, resulting in retaliation against them, but no actions to stop the fraudsters.

One estimate is that the Minnesota scandal accounts for some $9 billion of stolen funds. As investigators begin turning over rocks in other Democratic sanctuary jurisdictions, like California and New York, this may prove just the tip of an iceberg of corruption.

There is more. Although this fraud may well end up implicating thousands of illegal aliens allowed into our country and then protected from prosecution by the Democrats, Social Security fraud and other fraud offenses implicate literally millions. Yet, our ability to remove such fraudsters is hamstrung by the courts, sometimes for decades.

In one case from 2017, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that an alien was not removable from the United States for having committed an aggravated felony despite the alien's fraud conviction for $169,000 in food stamps theft.

In another case, an alien was placed in removal proceedings in 2005 while he remained until at least 2013, when his case finally made its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to determine whether his conviction for conspiracy to traffic in identification documents made him removable from the United States.

Another fraudster spent 2 years challenging his removal proceedings even though he admitted that he had received up to $3.5 million through food stamp fraud.

Other cases with aliens convicted of wire fraud and food stamp fraud languished for 1\1/2\ years to 4 years, respectively, before a Federal court finally upheld their removal orders.

In many other cases, aliens remained eligible to stay in the United States indefinitely despite their fraud convictions.

The Deporting Fraudsters Act of 2026, introduced by our colleague, Dave Taylor, streamlines this removal process. The bill is simple. If you admit to or are convicted of fraudulently receiving public benefits or committing other fraud offenses, you are out of here on the next plane and can never return.

This bill also incorporates my Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act, which the House passed on a bipartisan basis 2 years ago. That bill simply says that if you are an alien who admits to or is convicted of Social Security fraud or identification document fraud, you cannot enter our country. If you are already here, you are to be deported. That is just common sense.

Even The New York Times reported late last year that as many as 1 million illegal aliens ``are using fraudulent or stolen Social Security numbers.''

According to another report, in 2017 alone, there were 1.2 million cases in which illegal aliens used Social Security numbers that belonged to someone else or that were fabricated. That number surely has skyrocketed following 4 years of the Biden-Harris border crisis.

A 2022 investigative report found that because of this fraud, victims ``may face tax bills for income they didn't earn or depleted benefits,'' and may suffer from poor credit histories or even criminal histories.

That is exactly what happened to Daniel Kluver, a Minnesota man whose identity was stolen by a Guatemalan illegal alien with a criminal history and multiple deportations. Because of the identity theft, Kluver lost thousands of dollars through garnished wages and increased taxes, and spent years unsuccessfully trying to untangle the mystery of his stolen identity.

Now, imagine if that victim is you, and the perpetrator is an illegal alien who is allowed to stay in the United States indefinitely while a dysfunctional court system takes years to decide whether or not to deport him. That is absurd.

By specifically listing Federal crimes that make an alien inadmissible to or removable from the United States, this bill closes loopholes, removes the yearslong litigation that so often bogs down the removal process, and strengthens our immigration system.

Finally, the bill guarantees that the fraudsters described in this bill cannot exploit Americans' generosity again by receiving any immigration relief in this country.

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

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

My friend fundamentally misunderstands the provisions of this bill. There is nothing in this bill that prevents the prosecution and punishment of an individual for fraud.

In fact, when they admit the fraud, I think that is a plea of guilty. They can still be prosecuted. They can still be incarcerated. But this assures at the end of the judicial process and at the end of their punishment, they be deported.

Remember, the Democrats' sanctuary policies require that criminals in jail be released back onto our streets rather than be deported. That is what this bill fixes. They claim it is unnecessary because aliens with fraud convictions are already inadmissible and removable. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Although aliens who commit some forms of fraud may be found deportable, it is far from certain.

Take, for example, a case in which an alien stole an American's identity for 19 years. Although convicted, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this wasn't enough to constitute moral turpitude and therefore was not deportable.

In a Fifth Circuit case from 2021, an alien already had been in removal proceedings for 6 years before the Federal appeals court finally found that this made him deportable.

Another fraudster spent 2 years challenging his removal proceedings, even though he had admitted that he had received some $3.5 million through food stamp fraud.

These criminal aliens should have been out of this country once they had served their sentences, and that is why H.R. 1958 is imperative.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Washington objects to the provision that says if an alien admits to fraud, that should be enough to deport them. They demand a criminal conviction. How ironic that the Democrats are quick to take an alien's word when he illegally enters the country, gives a fake name, and claims asylum, but they can't take his word when he admits to committing crimes in the United States.

An admission of guilt is an admission of guilt. That ought to be enough to trigger the provisions of this law, and this is not even breaking new ground. In fact, the language in this bill is identical to the grounds for inadmissibility for a multitude of circumstances.

An alien can be removed for overstaying his visa, violating his nonimmigrant status or a condition of entry, smuggling aliens, committing marriage fraud, being a drug user or drug addict, falsely claiming U.S. citizenship, or engaging in espionage, all without a conviction.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

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

Mr. Speaker, I can't blame the ranking member for digressing into his Trump derangement syndrome. That is a lot easier, I suspect, than explaining why Democrats believe that aliens who have defrauded American taxpayers and stolen people's identities should remain in our country. That is their sanctuary policy in a nutshell. I wouldn't want to try to defend that either.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend seems so overwrought that he is simply misspeaking and doing so quite prolifically.

This bill does not say that you can deport on hearsay evidence. It says you must deport upon a conviction or an admission of guilt. That is it, and there are many offenses that already fall under this same process, and the standards are rigorous.

The alien's admission must be explicit, unequivocal, and unqualified. The immigration judge has to find that the admission fits within the relevant statutes and that the admission is based on reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.

The Democrats clearly aren't interested in due process. They are interested in gumming up the process so

that the illegal alien criminals can remain in this country, preying on Americans.

Mr. Speaker, that is the whole point of their sanctuary cities and the whole point of their opposition to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Taylor), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Taylor).

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

Mr. Speaker, the ranking member should know that once the bill is introduced, it leaves the control of the individual Member and becomes the property of the House and is subject to modification by a majority of the House.

I must say I find his objections rather curious, considering the fact that dozens of House Democrats have supported requiring an admission for a ground of deportability included as part of the Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act, which was approved by 55 House Democrats just 2 years ago. That was legislation that I introduced and is now incorporated into this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the CBO Cost Estimate for this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the question before us is a simple one. Should an alien who is here in this country as a guest of America be deported if they commit fraud and steal the funds of American families and American taxpayers or if they commit identity theft by stealing the Social Security numbers of American citizens?

That should not be a difficult question for anyone with a lick of common sense. We have enough problems with domestic criminals without tolerating the presence of criminals from every other country in the world.

If a person is a foreigner and commits fraud in this country, they need to go home and never be allowed to return. The Democrats want these criminals to stay. The Republicans want them to go. I don't wonder for a moment where the American people stand.

President Trump put a very simple and revealing proposition to the Democrats during his recent State of the Union Address. The first duty of the American Government is to defend the American people and not illegal aliens.

The Democrats made their answer crystal clear for the entire world to see. I am willing to bet they haven't learned a thing since then, but I am pleased to put that proposition to them today in this form. Should foreigners who commit fraud against the American people be allowed to stay in our country, ``yes'' or ``no''?

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

Mr. Speaker, take a good look around you. Everything you see wherever you look, everything that makes your life comfortable, everything that makes your life possible--everything--is either mined, or it is grown. There are no exceptions. Everything you enjoy and depend upon is either mined or grown from the ground. The generation that built our country understood this.

Mr. Speaker, over the chair from which you preside is emblazoned the prayer from Daniel Webster, which reads: ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests and see whether we also in our day and generation may not perform something worthy to be remembered.''

Yet, for 50 years, the environmental left has torn down these great achievements and waged war against everything that is mined or grown. They have piled tax upon tax, restriction upon restriction, and regulation upon regulation that have made mining and agriculture increasingly expensive and needlessly scarce.

That is the heart of the affordability crisis. The left has turned abundance into scarcity. Finally, in our day, a new generation is discovering that this self-destructive lunacy is not going to end well.

That brings us to this bill to reduce the regulatory burdens that the left has imposed upon our Nation's ability to prosper and advance. It codifies President Trump's executive orders that identify the resources that we can develop and calls forth the powers of prosperity that those resources promise.

It restores freedom to meet the challenge that Daniel Webster set before us by realigning our institutions on behalf of the American people so that we too can perform something worthy to be remembered, to make America great again.

Mr. Speaker, there is much to unpack from the arrest of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. Above all, there is the stark contrast between the American socialists who are bitterly denouncing the ouster of this socialist dictator and the masses of ordinary Venezuelans celebrating their deliverance from him.

Socialism under Chavez and Maduro utterly destroyed the prosperity and freedom of Venezuela, reducing it from one of the wealthiest nations in the world to one of the poorest. Like all socialist regimes, the Chavistas depend on brutal intimidation, terrorism, and violence to maintain their grip on power. A third of the population has now fled that afflicted nation. With Maduro's ouster, this diaspora of socialism's victims finally see a cause for hope, and they are rejoicing in the streets.

This should be a warning to our fellow Americans who today are flirting with the same socialist movement in our own country. It has long been foretold that when socialism comes to America, it will come as a smile.

Venezuelans are not the first to be seduced by the siren song of a benevolent and all-powerful government. Like every people who have blundered down that road, they awakened one morning to find the benevolence was gone and the all-powerful government was still there. Let that be a lesson to our misguided countrymen.

This should also be a warning to our adversaries around the world that the Monroe Doctrine has been revived and that America is again willing and capable of defending the New World from the intrigues of the old.

Every thug and despot around the world has new reason to fear the ancient warning: sic semper tyrannis.

Mr. Speaker, has the President acted within his inherent authority as Commander in Chief? The Federal courts have already answered that question time and again including the attacks on Libya by Obama and the arrest of Noriega by Bush. They have consistently ruled that these nearly identical precedents were within the prerogatives of the President and that Congress just as consistently has acquiesced.

As law professor Jonathan Turley put it: ``If Obama can vaporize an American citizen without even a criminal charge, Trump can capture a foreign citizen with a pending criminal indictment without prior congressional approval.''

This is an important debate that goes to the heart of the separation of powers and one that we ought to have. The Constitutional Convention originally considered giving Congress the exclusive power to make war. Elbridge Gerry successfully replaced ``make war'' with ``declare war.''

Madison explained this distinction as ``leaving to the executive the power to repel sudden attacks.'' That distinction has been widened over the centuries, and perhaps it is time to take a fresh look at this question of what distinguishes declaring war from making war.

In 1847, Congressman Abraham Lincoln addressed this very point and unsuccessfully argued that once the executive initiates a hostile act against a foreign power, it has, in fact, declared war by giving that power casus belli. He said that reacting to a military attack is one thing, but initiating an attack is quite another.

Personally, I think he had a point. I disagree with the current precedents, although I find it hard to fault the President from acting within them.

Restoring the many guardrails that separate executive, legislative, and judicial powers in our Constitution would be a fitting way for Congress to celebrate our Nation's 250th anniversary. The Supreme Court is doing its part by restoring the President's exclusive control over executive agencies, and perhaps it will soon restore Congress' exclusive control over tariffs. I certainly hope so.

Reasserting Congress' supremacy and the momentous question of war and peace will require a serious and sober discussion in Congress. When I hear the hyperbolic and hyperpartisan rhetoric of the Democrats in this House with their hatred of Donald Trump dripping from every word, I fear that discussion

must await calmer times, cooler heads, and wiser voices.

In the meantime, let us rejoice in the fruits of this action. They include the removal of the worst despot in the Western Hemisphere; the revival of the Monroe Doctrine; the ejection of malignant powers insinuating themselves into Latin America; the unmistakable warning to tyrants around the world that America is back; the triumph of American arms; and most of all, setting the stage for the return of liberty, justice, and prosperity to the people of Venezuela.

Mr. Speaker, the Romans had a saying: ``Time is fleeting, remember death''; ``Tempus fugit, memento mori.'' It reminds us that life is not a gift. It is just a loan, and when it comes due, all that matters is what we have given to others.

Doug LaMalfa was the kindest and most sincere person I have encountered in more than 40 years of public service. He passionately defended the working men and women of the rural community where he was born and raised and grew up, but he always did it with a good-natured smile and a quiet, respectful manner.

Just 3 weeks ago, on December 15, I took my seat on an early Washington-bound flight from Sacramento, about eight rows behind Doug.

When I looked up, he was standing there in the aisle with an outstretched hand. He leaned over, and he quietly said to me: Tom, I know this is a hard day for you, and I want you to know that my prayers are with you and Lori.

You see, that was the fourth anniversary of my dear wife Lori's death, and how he knew that, remembered it, and offered such warm comfort on such a cold morning tells you what a truly caring and wonderful man he was. And now he is gone, for time is fleeting.

Yet, death can't take the kindnesses and memories that he gave us all, or the wisdom, common sense, and achievements that he gave our country. Our Nation, our State, and our community have all suffered an irreplaceable loss, and rural America has lost its most tireless and effective advocate. Most of all, we have lost a good man, a very good man.

To his family, I can only say that you are not alone in your grief. Your community and your country grieve with you.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right, the Constitution is crystal clear that only Congress can start a war. However, in their deliberations on this subject, the Founders also made clear that they were leaving the President certain limited inherent power to react to an attack. For example, he can order up defensive measures or hot pursuit of an enemy or retaliatory strikes. That is the distinction they debated when they substituted ``declare war'' instead of ``make war'' among Congress' enumerated powers.

The supporters of this resolution are correct. Congress has to initiate hostilities, but neither of these resolutions are applicable to current events. H. Con. Res. 64 orders the President to remove forces from Venezuela that are not in Venezuela. Until and unless they are, this is at best an empty partisan exercise. Worse, it could be construed to constrain his inherent powers in the event of an attack by Venezuela that requires an immediate response.

H. Con. Res. 61 orders him to cease attacks on terrorist groups, presumably the drug runners, but these are unflagged vessels carrying contraband in international waters. An attack on them is not an attack on a foreign power and, therefore, not an act of war. It is akin to firing on Somali pirates menacing international shipping.

If the President launched an unprovoked attack on Venezuela or Venezuelan-flagged vessels without congressional declaration, we should have this debate. Until then, I think the Democrats would do well not to cry wolf on such an important matter.

Mr. Speaker, during the 4 years of the Democrats' open border nightmare, some half million unvetted, unaccompanied minors were trafficked into our country by our own government and left with poorly vetted or unvetted sponsors. The government lost track of 150,000 of them. This is a dark chapter in our history that must always be remembered and never be repeated.

So far, despite the vicious and sometimes violent opposition of the Democrats and their Antifa auxiliary, the Trump administration has now rescued 62,000 of these children who had fallen into the underworld of illegal sex and labor trafficking.

Many of these unaccompanied alien children weren't children at all. Some were gang members or adults pretending to be minors or both. Since the Biden administration's priority was to traffic as many as possible into our country, they didn't care to check. Biden's HHS Secretary compared the process to an assembly line, and he threatened to fire anyone who slowed it down to ask embarrassing questions like: Is this person with gang tattoos a member of a gang? Are they even a child?

Now, this bill is named after Kayla Hamilton. She paid the ultimate price for the Democrats' open borders. She was found in her own bedroom raped, tied up, and then strangled with a phone cord. Her murder was recorded on her boyfriend's voicemail when she desperately called him for help.

Kayla was just 20 years old. She was murdered by a 17-year-old MS-13 gang member who Biden's administration welcomed into our country. The police investigating her murder noticed that her assailant had gang tattoos. One call to El Salvadoran authorities confirmed he was a known MS-13 gang member, something that Federal officials never bothered to ask as they recklessly placed him in Kayla's neighborhood.

The Trump administration has stopped this madness, thank God, and ICE is now trying to locate every gang member that the Democrats allowed into our country in order to prevent future atrocities. ICE is being blocked every step of the way by the Democrats and their violent street mobs that they have incited and encouraged.

But what if another Democrat becomes President? Their leaders all backed these policies. That is why this bill is so desperately needed-- not for future presidents like Trump, pledged and determined to uphold our immigration laws, but for future Democrats who are pledged to undermine or ignore them.

If this bill had been law, Biden would have been powerless to unleash these horrors upon our people. This bill requires every unaccompanied alien child to be fully vetted and detained if they are suspected to be criminals or gang members. It also requires every sponsor to be similarly vetted, to prevent the rampant child abuse and trafficking that was aided and abetted by the Biden administration with the support of the Democrats in this Congress.

This must never happen again. This bill assures that whoever is President, it cannot happen again.