Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this bill at the request of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians to transfer 80 acres of BLM land and 185 acres of fee simple land that is already owned by the Tribe into trust as part of their reservation for the purposes of housing.

Mr. Speaker, I have always insisted that any transfer of lands from fee simple ownership to Federal trust must have the approval of the local land use management agency that is responsible for this land, since it takes that land off of the tax rolls and out of the agency's jurisdiction. I am pleased to report that the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors has unanimously endorsed this bill effecting the transfer.

This particular tract was approved for residential housing in the past, but the projects never materialized. This land transfer will bring a new neighborhood into the community, providing desperately needed housing to Tribal members. The Tribe already owns this land. It merely seeks the freedom afforded by Federal trust status to bring it to fruition.

The transfer of the 80 acres of Federal BLM land should also be a no- brainer. The BLM long ago abandoned this tract to neglect, and it is now densely overgrown and a serious fire hazard for the surrounding communities.

Putting this land under the active management of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians assures that good stewardship can be restored to this acreage in perpetuity.

The local government did request some restrictions on the use of the land, which the Tribal government has agreed to. The property cannot be used for gaming, nor for commerce beyond what is necessary to support the needs of the new neighborhood.

Frankly, I hope that future boards will agree to expand the permissible use of this land. In the meantime, both the Tribal government and the local government have agreed to these restrictions, and they are incorporated into this act.

Mr. Speaker, I will take just a moment to tell you about the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians because it is a remarkable tale of resilience, determination, and triumph.

The members of this Tribe are the descendants of the Miwok and Southern Maidu people who populated the Sierra Nevada mountains and the Central Valley of California for many thousands of years. Spanish colonization devastated the Native population in the 18th century, and the 19th century gold rush all but obliterated it. By 1913, the entire Native population of California had plummeted from an estimated 310,000 down to just 17,000.

In the aftermath, the few surviving members of the Miwok Tribe were allocated 160 acres as a rancheria, but the construction of Highway 50 cut the residents off from easy access and the members dispersed into the surrounding communities.

The Indian Reorganization Act breathed new life into the isolated, disbanded descendants, and the members returned and reorganized as the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, the only federally recognized Tribe in El Dorado County. They have achieved remarkable success in the years that have followed.

This small Tribe, numbering an estimated 500 enrolled members, raised the private money to build an off ramp from Highway 50 to restore access to their rancheria. They used the opportunities afforded under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to construct the Red Hawk Casino. From that success, they have expanded into a hospitality and recreation center for the region, providing employment, commerce, healthcare, and all of the spinoff commercial activity that that means to the surrounding community.

The Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians survived near annihilation during the Spanish colonization and gold rush eras only to become a prosperous and integral part of El Dorado County. I am honored to carry this legislation that will continue their progress and contributions to their posterity and to our community into the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 176) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to aliens who carried out, participated in, planned, financed, supported, or otherwise facilitated the attacks against Israel, as amended.

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. 176.

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

Mr. Speaker, although our political differences these days are vast, there are still some things we come together on in this body. We certainly did so during the last session. One of them was an enduring opposition to Hamas and the terrorism they unleashed on innocent civilians in Israel more than 2 years ago.

Earlier this year, the barbaric inhumanity of Hamas was revealed again in the macabre and infuriating spectacle of returning the bodies to the Bibas family. We last saw Shiri Bibas alive on October 7, 2023, as she was seized, terrified and sobbing, begging for the lives of her two little boys as they were dragged into the hell on Earth that Hamas created. This February, their murdered bodies were treated as trophies, and later we learned in a final act of cruelty that Shiri's body had been substituted for another.

We all came together in this body last year and said that such monsters as these must never be admitted into our country, never given safe haven on our soil, and never tolerated where they are found.

H.R. 176 says that anyone associated with Hamas or Palestinian Islamic jihad, in any capacity, or anyone who assisted these terrorist activities in any form, will not be allowed in this country under any circumstances, will be immediately removed if we do find them here, and under no circumstances will we allow them to receive any immigration benefit under our laws. We already single out Nazi collaborators and PLO terrorists. This simply adds Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad to that list.

Madam Speaker, for reasons I find inexplicable, the Senate couldn't be bothered to take up this bill in the last session. They will hopefully find the time in this session.

Under current law, being a member of Hamas or associated with its barbaric attack against Israel is not an explicit ground of inadmissibility or removability. That is just not good enough. Anyone who gave them support in any form should never be allowed into this country.

During the Biden years, the number of known or suspected terrorists encountered at the Southwest border soared to nearly 400. Too many were allowed into this country. How many more were among the 2 million known gotaways is anybody's guess. How many more are among the 190,000 Afghans allowed into this country with minimal or no vetting is also anybody's guess. We found out last week that one is far too many.

Under the Biden administration, Hamas terrorists didn't even have to sneak in across the border. President Biden simply let them in through the front door.

As just one example, less than 2 months ago, Federal officials arrested a 33-year-old native of Gaza, who was living in Lafayette, Louisiana, for his alleged involvement in Hamas' attack against Israel on October 7.

After learning about the ongoing Hamas attack, the alleged terrorists gathered a group of fighters and stormed into Israel to join the barbarism. Less than a year later, he submitted a visa application, which the Biden administration quickly approved, and he was allowed to enter the United States.

After the October 7 attacks, Director Wray warned us that the FBI ``cannot, and [does] not, discount the possibility that Hamas . . . could exploit the conflict to call on their supporters to conduct attacks on our own soil.'' These words proved to be prophetic.

On June 1, 2025, Mohammed Sabry Soliman, an Egyptian national, attacked pro-Israeli demonstrators who were marching in Boulder, Colorado, in

support of the release of hostages held captive by Hamas. While shouting, ``Free Palestine,'' Soliman attacked the peaceful demonstrators with Molotov cocktails, resulting in the hospitalization of at least eight people who suffered burns and other injuries. At least one of the victims had survived the Holocaust.

According to the Justice Department, Soliman stated he planned the attack for more than a year. He ``wanted to kill all Zionist people and wished they were all dead'' and would conduct the attack again if he had the chance. He, too, was able to enter the United States through the front door, this time with a tourist visa, under the Biden administration.

This can never be allowed to happen again, regardless of which party controls the executive branch. While we have a President who is committed to securing our borders, protecting our communities, and restoring the enforcement of our immigration laws, now is the time to act.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman says that the bill is unnecessary because terrorists are already covered under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This bill creates a new ground of removability and a new ground of inadmissibility for aliens who carried out, or participated in, or planned, or financed, or afforded material support to or otherwise facilitated any of the attacks against Israel beginning on October 7 of 2023.

In doing so, the bill treats the atrocities of October 7 on a par with the Immigration and Nationality Act's current treatment of Nazi persecution, genocide, torture, and extrajudicial killings.

Does anyone seriously argue that we should repeal the sanctions against persons who aided and abetted the Nazi's Holocaust?

If not, then why would they oppose extending the same sanctions to the Nazi's would-be, modern-day successors who just 2 years ago slaughtered more than 1,200 innocent civilians, including children, infants, and the elderly because they were Jewish?

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

First of all, I am not familiar with the case, so I can't comment on that directly. I am quite confident that we have an existing process for applying the law and a process for appealing the application of that law through a writ of habeas corpus in the judiciary if an individual seeks to contest it.

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

Madam Speaker, for 4 devastating years, our Nation suffered the largest illegal mass migration in history. For 4 devastating years, we were told that the laws had to be changed if we wanted to do anything about it, and in the meantime anyone who illegally entered our country could stay in our country and be supported by American taxpayers.

However, as President Trump said in this very Chamber and proved in his first weeks in office: We didn't new need new laws. We needed a new President.

The largest illegal mass migration in history must now be followed by the largest legal deportation and repatriation in history.

New laws would be helpful to prevent a future Joe Biden from making a mockery of our sovereignty and reopening our borders to the most violent criminal gangs, cartels, criminals, and terrorists on the planet, and it would be helpful to give a future President Donald Trump the added tools to quickly and expeditiously prevent these same groups from infiltrating our Nation, preying on our communities, and attacking our people.

This law will stop the Hamas terrorists and their supporters who perpetrated the most violent attack against innocent civilians since the Holocaust from entering our country, as we already sanctioned Nazi collaborators. Although they are a tiny fraction of those who do our country harm, at least it does that.

To the apologists of the Democrats' open-border policies who say that this is unnecessary and covered by other laws on the books, I would ask these two questions: First, if that were so, then where were those laws under Joe Biden?

Second, even if their argument was true and the legislation was entirely unnecessary, then why would they object to sending a strong message around the world that terrorists will get no quarter here?

Madam Speaker, if you have associated with Hamas, then you are persona non grata in America, as you should be in any corner of the world that values peace, justice, and human dignity.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 616) to amend title 36, United States Code, to revise the Federal charter for the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 616.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 616, the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association Charter Amendments Act of 2025.

The Federal Bar Association was founded in 1920 as a nonprofit organization. In 1954, Congress chartered the Federal Bar Association as a congressionally chartered organization under title 36.

The FBA seeks to strengthen the Federal legal system and administration of justice by providing services to Federal practitioners, the Federal judiciary, and the public.

The FBA serves the Federal legal community by promoting standards of professional competence and ethical conduct, providing educational programs to the public and the profession, and facilitating the administration of justice. The FBA is also committed to bringing civics education programs to classrooms across the country.

Over the years, it has become necessary for the FBA to update its bylaws. Because the FBA is a congressionally chartered organization, it takes an act of Congress to make changes in its charter to permit the FBA to update those bylaws.

S. 616 amends the FBA's current charter in several ways: It removes the requirement for the FBA to be incorporated and domiciled in Washington, D.C.;

It allows the board of directors to choose the location of the principal office;

It specifies that the FBA's bylaws establish membership requirements, responsibilities of the board of directors, and the election of officers;

It prohibits a director or officer from contributing or participating in political activities;

It prohibits loans to members and employees; and

It specifies that in the event of dissolution, any remaining assets are to be distributed by as provided by the board of directors.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of S. 616, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is often said that capitalism is selfishness and socialism is sharing. That is exactly backwards. The only way to succeed in a capitalist society is to figure out what somebody else needs and how to get it for them better than they can get it for themselves. It might be mowing their lawn. It might be doing brain surgery on their child. We have to help our neighbor somehow.

It is true if I take $1 from Peter and give it to Paul, Paul is $1 richer and Peter is $1 poorer. What I have really done is to take from both of them $1 worth of incentive to help each other. Peter no longer has a reason to help Paul because he no longer benefits, and Paul has no reason to help Peter because he no longer needs to.

Socialism, thus, dissolves the natural bonds that hold a society together and lead each of us to help one another. Capitalism is voluntary. Peter and Paul help each other because it is in their mutual interest to do so. Socialism is compulsion. We have got to take what one has earned from helping others and give it to someone who has none.

As Lincoln said: ``It is the same spirit that says, You toil and work and earn bread, and I'll eat it.''

Slavery and socialism both spring from that same rotten principle. Many societies have succumbed to the siren's song of a benevolent and all-powerful government, only to awaken one morning to find that benevolence is gone and the all-powerful government is still there.

Let that not be the epitaph of the United States of American. The history of human society can be summed up in just four words: Freedom works; socialism sucks.

Mr. Speaker, Zohran Mamdani's winning message was affordability, that the necessities of life are increasingly out of reach for most people, and that government is the answer.

He said on election night: ``There is no problem too large for government to solve.''

Mr. Speaker, he is right about the problem, but he is completely wrong about the solution. As Ronald Reagan often warned: ``Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.''

Housing affordability is a good place to start. When and where a free market is maintained, homebuilders have every incentive to meet the housing needs at every income level. The profit margin might be bigger at the top, but the sheer numbers of lower income families compensate with volume, assuring ample affordable housing for all income levels.

Government sets basic safety standards but otherwise leaves consumers alone to make their own decisions about everything else. As the tax base grows, new revenues are available to expand water systems, electricity generation, highway capacity, schools, police, and fire, all the necessities of a community.

Landlords have every incentive to provide as many rental units as the population needs, while competition keeps rents low and demand keeps units plentiful.

What has happened? Government decided to solve what socialists viewed as problems.

To solve suburban sprawl, the socialists began imposing severe limits and costly fees on construction permits. Builders could no longer profit from building vast numbers of affordable homes, so they focused their limited permits on the pricier models.

To solve climate change, the socialists mandated outrageously expensive add-ons like solar panels and hermetically sealed windows.

To solve their environmental angst, they required pointless studies that were endlessly time-consuming and outrageously costly along with backbreaking, outrageous environmental fees, adding many tens of thousands of dollars to the costs that were all passed on to helpless homebuyers.

As these solutions drove up the price of housing, the socialists began offering subsidies to lower income earners who had been priced out of the market by the socialists' own policies. As taxpayer dollars flooded into the already constricted market, prices and rents rose still further. As socialists solved the rental problem by freezing rents, landlords stopped building new units or maintaining existing ones.

When anything is scarce, it is expensive. When it is plentiful, it is cheap. Socialists have made housing scarce and, therefore, expensive. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than comparing the socialist utopia of California with the free State of Texas.

Last year, more housing permits were granted in the Houston and Dallas metropolitan areas than in all of Gavin Newsom's California. The median price of a home in Texas is $345,000. In California, it is $900,000.

Take healthcare. Americans once paid for their own healthcare. They could choose among policies offered by hundreds of competing providers for the one that best met their needs and circumstances. Most opted for inexpensive catastrophic plans for accidents and illnesses that could have bankrupted them, while paying for routine care out of pocket. Competition for their business kept prices low and quality high.

Socialists objected to leaving the poor to an extensive network of charities. They solved our healthcare inequalities with highly subsidized and mandated coverage that leaves consumers powerless to choose their own best options while severing the connection between the patient and the payer.

When somebody else is paying the bill, the patient doesn't care about price, and the payer doesn't care about quality. The result is costs spiraling out of control while patient satisfaction continues to decline.

At the center of socialism is the mistaken belief that profit is waste, and if it can be removed from the equation, everything will be cheaper. That is the fundamental misconception behind Mamdani's government grocery stores. Yet, profit is not waste. Profit is the essential ingredient that spurs competition, drives innovation, demands efficiency, and craves consumer satisfaction. Take profit out of the picture, and you have just learned the difference between FedEx and the post office.

Consumer electronics have steadily declined in cost while quality has steadily improved, precisely because the socialists have not yet decided to solve this market. When they do, you can expect the same high prices and decline in quality that they have already delivered in every field that they have solved, from housing to healthcare.

It comes down to four simple words: Freedom works. Socialism sucks.

Mr. Speaker, no one has suffered more than Californians because of the left's war on fossil fuels. Forty years of folly are now driving energy prices out of reach for working families and driving those working families out of California.

In 1980, 40 refineries served the California market, producing abundant gasoline at easily affordable prices. Mr. Latta said 14 refineries were left. His numbers are old. We are now down to

nine refineries, and two more of those, Phillips in southern California and Valero in northern California, are closing by April. That will leave us just seven refineries to serve the State.

Californians already pay the highest gasoline prices in the United States, averaging $4.64 a gallon as of yesterday. The same gallon costs only $2.56 in Oklahoma.

When we lose these next two refineries, economists at UC Berkeley predict Californians will be paying more than $8 a gallon by the summer. Leftwing zealots like Gavin Newsom obsess over a 1-degree rise in global temperatures over the next century, but they couldn't care less that they are making it impossible for growing numbers of Californians to heat their homes or get to work.

This is not only a quality-of-life issue for Californians and a cautionary tale for the rest of the country. It is a national security risk, as well. Forty military bases depend on these dwindling West Coast refineries. As California strangles production, we must increasingly rely on foreign imports from our enemies.

H.R. 3109 requires the National Petroleum Council to report on ways to reverse such foolish and self-destructive policies. What has happened to California is the predictable result of bad policy made by fools.

I hope the REFINER Act will shine a light on their folly and recommend ways to reverse the damage that they have caused before they can do any more harm to our Nation's prosperity and security.

Mr. Speaker, Jimmy Failla offered Democrats this pro tip: If you are going to call it the Republican shutdown, you are not supposed to get mad that it is ending.

Anyone who remembers their ``Schoolhouse Rock'' knows that once the House originates an appropriation, the Senate must either amend it or pass it. Now, the House did its job on September 19 with a simple appropriation that made no policy changes. It merely kept the government operating at current levels while we finished debating priorities.

Democrats deliberately blocked the Senate from acting, demanding $1.5 trillion of new spending as a ransom. Finally, thank God, eight of them put country ahead of party and voted to end this madness.

Hearing the bitter recriminations from our leftist colleagues, it seems unlikely we will see much bipartisanship today, but with or without, we will reopen the government tonight and get back to addressing the challenges that confront our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the El Dorado Irrigation District's Centennial.

The El Dorado Irrigation District (``EID'') was formed by a vote of El Dorado County residents on October 5, 1925 to secure and protect local water supplies, keep water rates reasonable, and increase the prosperity of El Dorado County; and from its nascent days of local governance and public service, EID has grown into a multi-service utility providing treated water delivery, wastewater treatment, recycled water services, hydroelectric power generation, and recreation to over 130,000 customers across 220 square miles.

Visionary leadership and several pivotal moments marked EID's evolution as the primary water supplier for El Dorado County residents:

In 1927, EID purchased the El Dorado Water Corporation's storage and distribution system, including key facilities and infrastructure dating back to the 1850s, such as Weber Reservoir and 70 miles of canals and laterals enabling EID to stabilize water deliveries; and

In 1955, the first water deliveries from the newly completed Sly Park Reservoir (owned by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and operated through agreement by EID) reflected a significant achievement in augmenting water supply for EID customers; and

From 1960 through the 1970s, EID acquired wastewater systems throughout Cameron Park and El Dorado Hills, establishing its wastewater and recycled water services;

In 1999, EID purchased Project 184 from Pacific Gas & Electric, adding to its portfolio and four water supply reservoirs, 21 megawatts of clean hydroelectric power generation, and associated water rights originally developed by pioneer John Kirk in 1856; and

In 2001, EID obtained Water Right Permit 21112, securing significant storage rights in Caples, Silver, and Aloha lakes as direct diversion rights from the Upper South Fork American River, which provide additional water supplies exercised at Folsom Reservoir; and

In 2003, through an act of the United .States Congress, EID acquired ownership of Sly Park Reservoir, its associated water rights, Sly Park Water Treatment Plant, and all Reclamation-owned water delivery infrastructure, thereby conveying local control to EID of its largest supply reservoir, expanding recreational opportunities that drive economic growth for the region, and strengthening local water supply security.

Throughout its history, EID has navigated the challenges of severe winter storms, drought, wildfire, aging infrastructure, and changing laws and regulations with resilience and a deep sense of responsibility to the land and people it serves.

Over the past 100 years, EID has continuously modernized its infrastructure demonstrating a continual pursuit of innovation, reliability, and environmental stewardship; and the success of the El Dorado Irrigation District for a century is a testament to the vision of its founders, the leadership of its locally-elected Board of Directors, the dedication of its employees, and the enduring tenacity and trust of its customers.

We do hereby commemorate the centennial anniversary of the El Dorado Irrigation District and honor the legacy, achievements, and future promise of this extraordinary public agency, and recognize not only 100 years of infrastructure and service, but 100 years of partnership, stewardship, and unwavering commitment to the health and prosperity of El Dorado County and surrounding Sierra Nevada communities.

Mr. Speaker, freedom of speech is the beating heart of a democracy. It is the entire reason that this building exists, so that we can talk out our differences.

Free societies do not fear free speech, even when that speech is hateful or malignant or stupid. Free societies recognize that the only way to separate fact from fiction, love from hate, truth from lies, wisdom from folly, or good from evil is to put them side by side and to trust the people to know the difference.

No central authority must ever be given the power to take this vital freedom away from the people or to punish anyone solely for expressing their opinions.

We have based our entire form of government on the assumption that, when exposed to all sides and all viewpoints, more than half of the people are going to get it right more than half of the time. This assumption has served us well through the centuries.

The left rejects this premise. For many years, leftists have told us that speech is violence and can be answered with violence. This justifies their shouting down opponents and disrupting peaceful assemblies.

We have repeatedly watched leftist mobs burn our cities, loot shopkeepers, and assault people on the streets while leftist politicians egged them on.

We see the growing physical attacks on law enforcement. The left used the FBI to suppress debate on critical issues ranging from COVID lockdowns to Biden family influence peddling to climate hysteria. It has called for government commissions to regulate it. In Europe, leftist governments now criminalize it.

Mr. Speaker, I raise these points because a Member of this House recently made some truly vile and despicable remarks about Charlie Kirk after his brutal assassination. Her words should be loudly and universally condemned.

Last night, on the House floor, a resolution of censure was brought against her in the name of Charlie Kirk to formally punish her for her hateful rhetoric, but what did Charlie Kirk say about hate speech?

He said this 5 years ago: ``My position is that even hate speech should be completely and totally allowed in our country. The most disgusting speech should absolutely be protected. . . . The ACLU used to hold this viewpoint. The American Civil Liberties Union, they sued so that legitimate Nazis could march through downtown Skokie. . . . Why would the ACLU do this? Because, they said, as soon as you use the word `hate,' that is a very subjective term because then, all of a sudden, it is in the eyes or it is in the implementation of whomever has the power. So here is my belief: The more speech, the better.''

That was Charlie Kirk.

We must never allow the left to become our teachers. If we ever do, we will lose our country. There will be no moral high ground, no changing of minds, and no rebirth of faith and freedom that we so desperately need.

Free societies do not fear words and thoughts, even those that are hateful, ugly, evil, or obscene, because the same freedom that protects these darkest

impulses of our nature also protects the right of men and women of good will to confront them, expose them, and reject them. The only true way to expose them as wrong is to do exactly what Charlie Kirk did until his last breath and with his last breath.

When the left calls us Nazis, fascists, and murderers, this might be hateful and hurtful, but it is speech, nonetheless. It should be criticized in the strongest possible terms as irresponsible, inflammatory, outrageous, revolting, and wrong. It should be ridiculed and shamed.

Businesses have every right to protect their reputation, and schools have every right to protect their children, but we should defend their right to say what they will and trust that the vast majority of Americans will see it for what it is.

There are only two ways to resolve our differences: There is reason, and there is force. The American Founders gave us a Republic governed by reason and illuminated by freedom of speech.

That is the civilization that Charlie Kirk lived for and died for. He devoted his life and ultimately gave his life to restore, strengthen, and perpetuate a free society based on discourse and reason.

What a tragedy it would be if, in our outrage and grief, we were to throw it all away.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would be willing to sacrifice making a few cheap political points, he might find that we are making bipartisan progress toward the goal that he has set forth. I, for one, am glad the Democrats have finally found a tax they don't like.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we considered a resolution that altered the law by extending the authority of the President to impose tariffs by 6 months, from September 30 until March 31.

I agree with the gentleman that our Constitution entrusts Congress with the power to set tariffs but that that responsibility has unwisely, and perhaps even unconstitutionally, been delegated over the years to the President. I think it is time we did revisit that issue. Yesterday, the Speaker committed personally to two things.

First, he promised that the next rule resolution would reduce the extension of this authority from 6 months to 4 months, expiring on January 31 rather than March 31. The gentleman says that is not soon enough. Some of us would agree. This resolution fulfills that promise.

Second, the Speaker promised to convene a working group within the Republican Conference to establish a clear and coherent congressional policy on the use of tariffs to report before the end of January. This is important because there are increasing signs of tariff-related damage to the economy--the gentleman is absolutely right on that point--and because the courts may be moving to restore the guardrails between the executive and legislative branches with respect to tariffs.

I would hope he would support this resolution and thank the leadership for being responsive to those of us who fervently believe that free trade is an essential foundation of a healthy, growing, and thriving economy.

As Bastiat warned nearly two centuries ago, tariffs, by definition, raise prices and reduce resources. They are a tax. This is the first time I have ever found the Democrats to be in opposition to a tax. I think they will find willing and enthusiastic outliers on our side of the aisle as this discussion moves forward.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that every producer is a consumer. Every consumer is a producer. No producer has ever benefited by scarcer resources. No consumer has ever benefited by higher prices. Yet this is the bitter fruit of protectionist policy down through the ages.

Mr. Speaker, we need to have a serious and sober discussion on this issue and bring it to a resolution. The Speaker has committed to do this. For that, I thank him, and I suggest that the gentleman across the aisle thank him, too.

Madam Speaker, the Democrats are outraged that the largest illegal mass migration in history, which they unleashed on our country, must now be followed by the largest repatriation in history.

Democrats insist that they don't object to removing violent criminals, but that is a demonstrable lie. The whole point of the Democrats' sanctuary laws is to protect criminal illegal aliens from being turned over to ICE for deportation. Instead, they released them back into our communities, where many have gone on to commit even more heinous crimes.

Recently, when Federal officers served a criminal warrant on a southern California marijuana farm, activists staged a riot. Officers liberated 12 minors forced to work at this facility. Eight of them were among the 465,000 unaccompanied alien children that the Democrats placed with poorly or unvetted sponsors during Biden's administration.

It appears the marijuana farm was employing scores of illegal aliens to undercut their competition, in flagrant violation of U.S. labor and immigration laws.

Now, let's start with some simple truths. 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, we have no country. We have gotten a glimpse of what that means as foreign flags are waved by violent mobs setting fires, ransacking businesses, and terrorizing motorists in our sanctuary cities.

What do our immigration laws actually say? They say, clearly and unambiguously, that any and every adult who illegally enters our country shall be detained. Those are the exact words of the law: ``shall be detained.'' The Democrats simply ignore it.

They have a right to challenge their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. If they are charged with a crime, they have a right to a trial by jury, but at no time do they have the right to be released back into our communities. Under the law, they ``shall be detained.''

Unless they are charged with a crime, they have the right to leave detention any time they want for any country that will admit them. What they don't have is the right to remain in our country unless a judge determines otherwise.

That is why the administration is expanding detention facilities, because that is what the law requires if our borders are going to mean anything.

The Democrats call these concentration camps, but the detainees are free to leave for home anytime they choose. Indeed, that is the purpose, to provide temporary shelter while transportation is being arranged.

Deportation is not a punishment and requires no criminal charges. It is a simple administrative act. Challenging it does not invoke a right to freely enter and stay indefinitely. You either wait here in detention or in another country that will accept you. Those are your options.

Reportedly, more than a million illegal aliens have already decided to return home, an option for which our government will arrange transportation, a $1,000 stipend to help them resettle, and a right to apply for legal entry. If they wait until they are encountered by ICE, they will be taken into custody, deported, and forbidden from reentering. That is a choice.

What about those who, after breaking our immigration laws to enter the country and breaking our labor laws to work here, have broken no other laws? That doesn't mean there aren't victims. For years, American families have struggled as the flood of illegal labor has taken their jobs and suppressed their wages.

During Biden's 4 years, most new jobs were taken by foreigners, and Americans' real wages declined. Just 6 months into the Trump administration, most new jobs are now taken by Americans, and real wages are growing once again. That is not a coincidence.

Supporting this impoverished, illegal population costs American taxpayers an estimated $160 billion a year. It flooded classrooms with non-English-speaking students, packed emergency rooms with illegals demanding care, and overwhelmed homeless shelters and food banks meant to help Americans. Worst of all, the most violent and dangerous criminal gangs in the world accompanied this population into our country and have now taken deep root in the Democrats' sanctuary cities.

This is why we must enforce our immigration laws to the letter, as this administration is doing. America admits more legal immigrants under our laws than any nation on the planet and will continue to do so, but that does not give license to millions of foreign nationals to violate those same laws.

That is the simple truth the Democrats refuse to acknowledge.

Madam Speaker, as has been noted, H.R. 183 simply extends the lifetime national parks pass to the frontline public safety officers who risk their lives every day to protect our families and communities. It is the same courtesy we already extend to U.S. military members and their families, to our veterans, and to our Gold Star families. The CBO estimates its cost at about $500,000 a year.

These men and women, just like those who serve our military, put their lives on the line to protect our families. It seems fitting that we should extend this small courtesy to them. It is simply a way to say thank you to them, a simple but tangible token of our gratitude and esteem.

I first introduced this legislation during the George Floyd riots, when BLM rioters were chanting: ``Pigs in a blanket, fry `em like bacon,'' and leftist politicians were calling for defunding local police departments. We recently expanded it to include firefighters and wildland firefighters, to whom we owe so much for protecting our homes, towns, and communities, as well.

The bill was proposed to me by Janine D'Agostini, the wife of then-El Dorado County Sheriff John D'Agostini, as a small token of appreciation for law enforcement officers who were taking so much abuse when they were trying so hard to protect our families from those who would prey upon them.

Madam Speaker, it seems that, in those years, the wheel has come full circle. Once again, law enforcement personnel are the target of doxing, violent demonstrations, and leftist officials who so often seem to take the side of the lawless against the law-abiding.

Our hearts go out to the many officers of ICE and CBP and their families who have recently been subjected to violence and intimidation, often fanned by the extremist rhetoric of elected officials who ought to know better.

In fact, just 2 weeks ago, while ICE was serving a court-ordered warrant in Carpinteria, a sitting Member of this House doxed an ICE agent to a violent mob. That mob then took off after the agent and physically attacked him with rocks, injuring him seriously enough to require treatment in a hospital emergency room.

This has to stop. We want these brave men and women and their families to know that the vast majority of the American people, the majority of this Congress, and, of course, this President stand behind them, appreciate them, and honor their work. We depend upon them not only for our safety but for the very rule of law itself.

After all, without law enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no civilization, as people in sanctuary cities like Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, and New York are learning all too well once again.

This bill was first introduced in 2021. It received a hearing in 2023 but was never marked up. It is long overdue, and I appreciate the House finally considering it today.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a great debate between deficits and taxes, but deficits and taxes are two sides of the same coin. To spend a dollar, Mr. Speaker, you must either tax it now or borrow it now and tax it later. Taxes and deficits are both driven by spending.

This bill rescinds some of the most stupid spending in the entire Federal Government. These are the kindest cuts of all: subsidies for state media and grants to corrupt NGOs for outrageous foreign propaganda.

Mr. Speaker, $9 billion comes to about $70 for an average American family.

Mr. Speaker, do you think they prefer to spend that $70 on a new pair of shoes for their child or for ``girl-centric climate change programs'' in Brazil?

That is the choice.

Congress squanders hundreds of billions of dollars annually on destructive subsidies and useless grants like these. Let us finally take this first, small step toward the solvency of our Nation, relief for our people, and redemption for our Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the big, beautiful bill is now the law, so it is no longer a theoretical discussion about what the bill might do. We are about to find out what it will do.

The Democrats have succeeded in frightening Americans into lopsided opposition. On the day it passed the House, one poll registered just 29 percent public support for it compared to 55 percent opposition.

This has encouraged Democrats to double down on their hysterical warnings of societal collapse, warnings they hope will continue to resonate with the public.

What they don't seem to grasp is that you can't spin the economy. Everybody knows in their own lives exactly how the economy is doing and any politician who tries to tell them otherwise just looks foolish.

Remember when the Democrats were telling us for years that Bidenomics was working. The only economic indicator that matters is the answer Americans give to this question: Are you better off today than you were 2 years ago?

Now, Americans may never realize that this bill protected them from a 22 percent income tax increase that was set to take effect on January 1. A family making $75,000 a year won't feel its taxes rise $1,500, so it won't feel relief from this provision. We don't feel what doesn't happen.

Democrats are counting on this fact while stoking class resentments over tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, but millionaires and billionaires don't work for tips. They don't get paid overtime. They don't rely on Social Security. Working families do, and for the first time, the big, beautiful bill shields these earnings from being taxed. In addition, residents of high tax States will feel a big reduction in their Federal income tax bill.

Further, businesses get relief, too, those awful millionaires and billionaires, mainly in their ability to deduct 100 percent of their expenses for manufacturing purchases. That means that manufacturers of every variety will add equipment to their plants, increasing the productivity and the pay of existing workers, and adding new jobs to make that equipment.

By opening America's vast energy resources, domestic production is about to rev up, a declaration of American energy independence that will echo throughout the entire economy, then add the completion of the border wall and the removal of millions of illegal aliens that the Democrats allowed into our country.

Under Biden, most of the new jobs were snapped up by foreigners, and real wages fell. Under Trump, most jobs are going to Americans, and real wages for Americans are rising again, as employers are forced to pay a market rate for labor.

The Democrats' mantra that millions of destitute Americans will lose their Medicaid coverage is about to be challenged by reality. The fact is that the only groups losing coverage are able-bodied grownups who refuse to get off the couch and look for work, illegal aliens who refuse to go home, and fraudsters.

What happens when millions of legitimate Medicaid recipients who have been terrified by the Democrats realize that their benefits are untouched? Well, we are going to find out.

Will the national debt balloon? Only if you accept the assumption that the economy will grow at an anemic 1.8 percent next year. The average 20th century growth rate, including the Depression, was 3.3 percent. A mere 3 percent growth rate will generate $4 trillion of new revenues, and that doesn't include hundreds of billions of dollars collected from imports or saved by eliminating waste identified by

Mr. Speaker, this bill fulfills many of the promises we made to the American people: lower taxes, lighter regulations, a secure border, more frugal spending, and a war on waste. Throughout history, these are the policies that have produced prosperity and security, and there is every reason to believe that they will again.

I remind my conservative friends who say this bill doesn't go far enough that our process was not designed to make perfect law. It was designed to make the best law that is acceptable to a majority. Judging by the narrow votes, we have pushed this bill about as far toward perfection as our process allows.

The proof is not in the debate points scored today, but rather, next year when Americans will ask themselves if

they are better off. I believe, because of this bill, the answer will be a resounding yes, and perhaps that is what the Democrats fear most.