Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, many Democrats in this House have called the L.A. riots peaceful, even while Americans watched with their own eyes as marauding mobs under foreign flags set cars on fire, threw concrete blocks at police, terrorized motorists, and vandalized and looted local shops.

The Democratic vice mayor of Cudahy has called on criminal street gangs to attack Federal law enforcement.

The Democratic mayor of Los Angeles said that for the riots to stop, the Federal Government had to stop enforcing Federal immigration law. You just heard the same sentiment expressed on this floor a few minutes ago.

The Democratic Newsom administration has paid millions of taxpayer dollars to one of the principal organizers of these riots.

I have news for the Democrats: The doctrine of nullification died with the Confederacy. States are not permitted to obstruct the enforcement of Federal law. In a humiliating slap-down of Mr. Newsom, even the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the President has the clear authority to federalize the National Guard to restore order whenever State or local officials are derelict in their duty to protect the public and enforce the law.

Remember how all this started: ICE agents attempted to execute court- ordered warrants on criminal illegal aliens. When a mob intervened, ICE called for local law enforcement. The mayor reportedly stopped them from responding, and the Governor did nothing. Now, we saw during the George Floyd riots what happens when leftist officials refuse to counter violent mobs: American cities aflame, billions of dollars of damage, and 19 people killed.

This resolution condemns the violence, but there is something far more sinister afoot that strikes at the very foundation of a constitutional Republic: the rule of law. As Abraham Lincoln told the Democrats long ago: ``There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law,'' and this generation of Americans is taking note.

Madam Speaker, this bill presents a very simple proposition: Should someone who is a guest in this country and who endangers Americans, while driving drunk, be allowed to stay in this country?

Republicans say: Of course, not.

The Democrats say: Sure, why not.

This ought to be a no-brainer, especially after so many incidents of preventable DUI traffic deaths involving foreign nationals.

Then gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter) mentioned a few of the cases of aliens with multiple drunk driving offenses released time and time again and not deported, while the butcher's bill steadily grows.

Why are such people allowed to remain in our country? The Democrats want it that way. In 2020, Joe Biden said that illegal aliens with DUI convictions should be allowed to stay in the United States. He said: ``You only arrest for the purpose of dealing with a felony that's committed, and I don't count drunk driving as a felony.''

When Republicans tried to enact this law in 2021, then Democratic Committee on the Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler opposed any limit to DUI convictions. He said that whether someone has 2, 6, 10, or 20 convictions for DUI 30 years ago, someone can change. Of course, that begs the question: How many have to die before they change?

Through some of these debates, the Democrats have consistently supported open borders, sanctuary laws that shield violent criminals, and even modest measures like this one that say we shouldn't have to tolerate guests in this country who recklessly endanger our families.

In fact, now they are telling us that in order to stop their riots, we have to stop enforcing our existing immigration laws.

Madam Speaker, the American people need to take note of debates like this because none more clearly differentiate the two political parties today.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first of what needs to be many rescission bills stopping the waste of public funds.

The absurd expenditures the majority leader just listed speak volumes about the scandalous corruption and carelessness of a bloated government. Every dollar comes from working American families struggling to pay both their bills and their taxes.

Now, this waste is enabled by two classes of expenditures that we should foreswear forever. One is grants, cash handouts to political favorites with little accountability or oversight, whether directly or through agencies like USAID. The other is subsidies that replace the judgment of consumers with that of politicians, distorting the flow of capital from its highest and best use.

As we express our outrage at this waste and take this first step to claw it back, let us remember that Congress approved all of it, and it is time that we repented before we bankrupt our country.

Mr. Speaker, if this bill fails, an average family's taxes will rise 22 percent next year, about $1,700 a year. It would be the biggest tax increase in American history.

If it succeeds, working families will be able to keep more of their earnings. We will be able to complete the border wall and protect our communities from the violent cartels the Democrats allowed into our country.

We will relieve pressure on Medicaid by requiring able-bodied adults on it to look for work, and we can free up America's vast energy resources.

The most important economic indicator is how Americans answer this question next year: Are you better off today than you were 2 years ago? By this time next year, Americans could be enjoying one of the most explosive periods of growth in our history and all that means: secure borders, safer communities, lower taxes, abundant energy, an increase in better jobs, a higher standard of living, and a better quality of life--a big, beautiful future for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order hour.

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

Mr. Speaker, this week, we passed a major milestone when a majority of the entire House of Representatives signed on as cosponsors of H. Res. 166, supporting a democratic, secular, and nonnuclear Republic of Iran.

This truly bipartisan and broad-based House majority of 224, consisting of 139 Republicans and 85 Democrats, endorses the general principles propounded by Iranian democracy groups, most notably the 10- point plan proposed by the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

It calls for the universal right to vote; free elections; a market economy; separation of religion and state; gender, religious, and ethnic equality; foreign policy based on peaceful coexistence; peace in the Middle East; and a nonnuclear Republic of Iran. It also condemns the Iranian regime's terrorism, regional proxy war, and internal oppression.

Over 4,000 parliamentarians worldwide, the majority of 33 national legislative assemblies, over 130 world leaders, and 80 Nobel laureates have endorsed these principles. I am gratified that a majority of the entire House has stepped forward to support this resolution.

There are several Iranian groups fighting the Iranian dictatorship, and it will ultimately be up to the people of Iran to chart their own future, as the 10-point plan proposes.

One cause should unite us all, and that is the collapse of the current regime. To this end, we have organized the Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus within the House of Representatives. This is a truly bipartisan caucus. Like the various liberation groups of Iran, we Republicans and Democrats differ and quarrel about many things, but we are solidly united in the support of the people of Iran and their struggle for their own liberation from the tyranny of the mullahs.

The Iranian regime has made clear that it intends to acquire nuclear weapons and, once acquired, to use them. President Trump has made clear that this cannot be allowed to happen. I, for one, appreciate the efforts of this

administration to stop that from happening without bloodshed. The Iranian regime has proven itself to be utterly untrustworthy to abide by any agreement it makes. That makes any negotiation with this regime highly problematic.

There is only one solution that promises to resolve this danger without the risk of a terrible war that could claim many thousands of innocent lives, and that is the collapse of the regime from within. Opposition to the oppression of the mullahs has been simmering in Iran for many years. It is time to provide material support to help these groups liberate their country.

Past administrations sent cargo pallets of cash on cargo planes to these bloodthirsty mullahs in hopes of currying their favor and cooperation. However good the intentions, the result was to help fund the oppression of the Iranian people and the export of terrorism throughout the world.

I believe the time has now come to provide the same assistance, not to the oppressors of Iran, but to the people of Iran and the resistance groups actively seeking their overthrow.

The overthrow of this regime from within would be the cheapest, surest, and most peaceful way to remove it as a threat to the freedom of the Iranian people, the stability of the region, and the peace of the world. That is what the Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus was organized to promote and what H. Res. 166 pledges to accomplish.

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

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fine has been here only about 6 weeks. As you can see, he is already distinguishing himself as a vital voice for freedom abroad and for liberty at home. I couldn't be more pleased to have him here today to speak on behalf of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, Iran is one of the oldest and greatest civilizations in history. It was one of the most free, advanced, prosperous, and open countries in the Middle East just a few decades ago. Then, came the revolution of 1979, when the progress abruptly ended with the takeover by the theocratic despots who introduced a reign of terror that has gone on now for decades.

Twice before, Iranians were on the verge of overthrowing this regime. In 2009, as Iranians took to the streets during the so-called Green Movement, they looked to the United States for support but got only silence. In 2016, the American Government sent $1.7 billion in cash to the mullahs on shrink-wrapped cargo pallets. In 2015, we released $150 billion more in frozen assets, all to get a nuclear agreement that Iran never honored.

Today, America must stand with the people of Iran. The regime in Tehran has been crystal clear about its intent to develop nuclear weapons and, once developed, to use them.

There are only two ways this is going to end. It will end either with thousands, perhaps millions, dead in a terrible war or with a successful revolution and the long-overdue collapse of this regime.

The President is speaking out forcefully, and he is acting decisively. So must Congress.

H. Res. 166 has 224 cosponsors, representing both political parties. It expresses support for the Iranian resistance and its vision of a free, secular, and nonnuclear Iran. I urge the leadership to bring it to the floor for a vote.

Our Declaration of Independence proclaims that whenever a government becomes destructive of the natural rights of its people, it becomes their right to alter or abolish it. This critical hour has come for the people of Iran.

I believe it is time for the United States to step forward with material support for the freedom movement. For every dollar this government has given over the years to this brutal dictatorship, we owe many times over to the Iranians who are desperately trying to overthrow their oppressors and restore the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.

They need the direct satellite access to the internet that the regime has denied them on the ground. They need us to restore economic sanctions, as the President is doing against the regime in a renewed boycott of Iran.

Mr. Speaker, decisive turning points in history do not come often. When history commands, we must answer. That answer will follow us far into the future.

This time and in this hour, let the United States take a stand with the people of Iran and, by so doing, fulfill those proud words in our Liberty Bell, to proclaim liberty in all the land and to all the inhabitants thereof.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 25 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 15, 2025, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, in every election, somebody wins and somebody loses. Democracy depends on the losing side trusting that the election was a fair and accurate reflection of the will of the majority, and the winning side depends on the same perception for the legitimacy of their office.

For centuries, our elections were the gold standard for the world because they were very hard to cheat in. Essential components of this process were 30-day registration, in-person election day voting, and proof of identity.

In recent years, in many States, the woke left has torn down these safeguards. Mail-in ballots where there is no chain of custody, counting ballots weeks after election day, counting ballots in secret, ballot harvesting, same-day registration, turning election day into election month, and forbidding proof of identity all make cheating easy and destroy the public's confidence in the process.

In many jurisdictions, the Democrats have made it clear that they intend to allow noncitizens to vote, the ultimate in foreign election interference.

I have news for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: American elections are for Americans.

The SAVE Act restores this vital principle by requiring proof of citizenship and identity in the Federal elections that affect every American. Americans should pay close attention to this vote, for it will reveal those who would subvert their vote to foreign nationals.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the passing of Bob Phelan of Modesto, a valued and beloved member of my congressional staff for these past 3 years. His was a remarkable life and one that should inspire every American to realize the opportunities that freedom provides.

When Bob's father died, he was forced to drop out of high school to work odd jobs to support their family. For nearly 10 years, he worked as a crab cracker at Alioto's restaurant on Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco.

Searching for a better life, he came to Modesto where his outgoing personality made him an ideal salesman and a manager for such well- known companies as Keebler cookies and Earl Scheib.

There in Modesto, he met his wife of 31 years, Alta, and raised their family.

When his son joined the Navy in the Gulf war, Bob's attention turned to politics. He became a devotee of Rush Limbaugh and began working for local candidates. He ended up starting his own political consulting firm. Ultimately, he served as a trusted adviser to state assemblymen and then-State senator and also county supervisor Tom Berryhill for nearly 15 years.

When reapportionment brought my district into Stanislaus County, I was fortunate to bring him into my congressional office where he served ably as my district representative.

His work ethic, his love for people, his sunny disposition, and his simple decency made him an exemplary figure in our community.

He was always the picture of fitness and health until he was diagnosed last year with cancer. He never let that slow him down, and until the very end he continued to attend to his duties.

He was an exemplary father, husband, grandfather, citizen, and human being, the kind of person who holds a community together even through trying times, and he will be particularly missed.

Mr. Speaker, it was a great loss for our community, a great loss for our office, but most of all, a great loss for his family. We mourn his passing today.

Honoring Marlee Lauffer

Mr. Speaker, on May 17, the College of the Canyons Foundation will honor Marlee Lauffer with the 2025 Silver Spur Community Service Award in recognition of her longtime philanthropic work.

I first met Marlee as a high school student leader in Tustin, and she was my first and only choice as chief of staff when I was elected to the California State Assembly in 1982.

Somehow, she was able to clean up every mess I made in those years. She continued in that capacity until Newhall Land and Farming Company, the largest land developer in California, recognized her talents and offered her a senior position in their company when she was still in her twenties.

Well, four decades later, she is still in her twenties, and her energy and devotion to the community has never been stronger. I am deeply gratified to see her honored by her community and to join in their accolades of her work.

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

Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin told of a French woman who once confided to her sister: ``I don't know how it happens, sister, but I meet with nobody but myself that is always in the right.'' He was reminding his colleagues that democracies were never designed to make perfect decisions, only the most acceptable ones to the most people.

My disappointment in the Senate version before us is vast, but it has one redeeming quality: It is within reach. No, it doesn't begin to address the dangerous debt that threatens our Nation's solvency, but it does open up a process that is absolutely critical if we are going to stop a $4.5 trillion tax increase that would devastate our economy, provide the funds to secure our borders, and provide for our defense in a dangerous world.

I am frustrated with the Senate numbers, but in DOGE we trust. I think we can achieve a trillion dollars of savings as a result of its work. The mass repatriation of millions of illegal aliens should save another $150 billion. Restoring the work requirement for able-bodied welfare recipients will save hundreds of billions of dollars more without touching a single service for the truly needy. The economic rebound from the regulatory and fiscal reforms and from the bilateral free trade agreements the President intends to negotiate are potentially explosive.

None of these reforms are in this resolution, but all of them depend on this resolution. If anybody has a better alternative, they need to bring it to a vote in both Houses this week. Otherwise, let us take a little of Benjamin Franklin's advice, doubt a little of our own infallibility, and get on with the work we were elected to do and upon which the prosperity of our people and the future of our Nation depends.

Mr. Speaker, in order for the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that affects the entire Nation, at least five Justices of the Supreme Court must concur. Yet today, individual district court judges are asserting this authority by themselves. This is an outrageous abuse of public trust and judicial power, and it has opened a Pandora's box that threatens the fundamental constitutional order.

The Congress is elected to make law, and the President is elected to enforce it. The judiciary is appointed for the sole purpose of resolving cases and controversies brought to it by individual injured parties. Traditionally, that means an injured party seeks redress through his local district court. This simple process ensures decisions are limited to the unique circumstances of the individuals involved and are restricted to cases within that district, subject to appeal first to the circuit court and ultimately to the Supreme Court.

This ensures that multiple voices contribute to the development of a legal consensus before the matter reaches the Supreme Court. A single district judge seizing this authority for himself utterly short- circuits this process and does incalculable injury to our Constitution.

The fact that 92 percent of the nationwide injunctions blocking President Trump have been issued by district court judges appointed by Democrats, many with long histories of political activism, gravely undermines the public's confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.

I am disappointed that the Supreme Court has not set its own house in order by restoring the judicial guardrails that protect us from judge shopping, from political activism masquerading as judicial deliberation, and from the usurpation of the constitutional powers conferred upon the elected President and Congress.

Four Justices have signaled their readiness to do so. Yet, without a fifth, Congress is left with no alternative but to act on its own authority. With this bill, it does.

Mr. Speaker, a well-known bureaucratic response to any attempt to reduce government spending is called the Washington Monument strategy. If anybody suggests cutting the budget, then just shut down the Washington Monument until enough tourists complain to their Congressman.

We saw this strategy implemented with a vengeance during the government shutdown under Obama. All reservations at the national parks were canceled. Vendors were ordered to close, perishable deliveries were turned back, The National Mall was cordoned off, gates to the national parks were chained, and even highway turnouts with a view of Yosemite Valley were barricaded.

Now, compare that to the government shutdown in the first Trump administration. Vendors remained in business, the public lands remained fully open to the public, no monuments were obstructed, no barricades were erected, and the gates to the national parks remained fully accessible.

Today, opponents of President Trump's war on government waste have revived the Washington Monument strategy to maintain a bloated Federal workforce that is crushing American taxpayers. Every dollar of discretionary spending, which fully or partially funds every department within the Federal Government, is now borrowed. Instead of long-overdue streamlining, the Democrats are pushing for a tax increase that will amount to about $1,500 on a family earning just $75,000.

At Yosemite National Park, in my district, disgruntled employees hung a giant American flag upside-down on El Capitan the other day, ruining the view for tourists who came to enjoy Yosemite's famous firefall. Remote cameras at the park are now blocked by protest signs. A Yosemite biologist told gullible reporters that the staff cuts would doom the Sierra Nevada red fox to extinction. Others warned that layoffs would result in visitors stuck in restrooms and fires raging out of control.

This is human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria, as a ``Ghostbusters'' character once put it.

What is the actual number of layoffs at Yosemite National Park that will bring the beautiful valley to rack and ruin?

Mr. Speaker, 10, the number is 10 probationary employees, 10 out of nearly 500 full-time winter employees, 25 if you include early retirements and no firefighters.

This begs some important questions: Is the park so poorly managed that only one employee has keys to the restrooms serving the 748,000- acre national park?

Apparently.

How will the Sierra Nevada red fox survive with only eight remaining biologists at Yosemite looking out for it rather than nine? I guess we will just have to find out.

How many of Yosemite's employees are working from home? We don't know because the park management won't tell us. We do know that 34 percent of National Park Service employees across the country were still working from home in 2023. Need to find the nearest unlocked restroom? Just email them.

Indeed, the employees who provide most of the visitor amenities, such as the hotels, shops, and restaurants, don't even work for the Park Service. They work for the park's private concessionaire.

It is true that hiring seasonal employees was delayed for a few weeks when the administration put a temporary hold on new hires, but that hold was soon lifted. These positions will actually increase by about 50.

More than a decade ago, when I first met with park management, I noticed a placard in the conference room. It read: Is it good for the park?

I suggested that was the wrong question. The right question is: Is it good for the park's visitors?

It is a matter of attitude.

The Yosemite Grant Act of 1864 was the first time that land was set aside for the use, resort, and recreation of the American people. It says nothing about the park's employees. They work for the people, who, in turn, have selected Donald Trump to exercise the executive powers of the government and charged him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He can't do that if he can't open the books, look at where the money is spent, and determine whether it is being spent efficiently and in accordance with the law or stop it when it isn't.

The antics of some of Yosemite's employees dishonor the silent majority at the park, who are genuinely devoted to public service.

As Hamilton said: ``Here, sir, the people govern.''

All 2.4 million employees in the Federal workforce exercise powers delegated by the President through our Constitution by virtue of his election. Any Federal employee who doesn't respect the authority of the people and the President they elected has no business working for them.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Green deliberately disrupted Congress' proceedings during a joint session yesterday.

This was an affront to the Constitution, which commands that the President report to the Congress from time to time. It was an insult to the Presidency, and it was a disgrace to this body.

It was perpetrated not by some lunatic wearing buffalo horns but, rather, by an elected Member of the United States Congress. This is worthy of the harshest sanctions that we can apply.

Mr. Speaker, many Members repeatedly interrupted this Presidential address with catcalls and insults and other gestures of disrespect. A Member once did this to President Obama. He apologized, and he was reprimanded.

I didn't hear an apology from Mr. Green right now. What I heard was deliberate, calculated defiance.

The whole reason for this building to exist and the whole reason for this House Chamber is to exchange our views, sometimes very sharply different views, and talk out the differences among us. In order for that to work, that discussion has to be accompanied by civility and decorum.

Accordingly, our rules insist on that. I believe that all of those who breach

these rules need to be held accountable, lest this event become just another sad milestone in the denigration of this institution.

Mr. Speaker, our country has just suffered the largest illegal mass migration in history.

Over 4 years, the Democrats opened our borders and allowed an unvetted and largely impoverished population of nearly 8 million to illegally enter our country--a population the size of Washington State.

This illegal mass migration has overwhelmed our public schools, public hospitals, homeless shelters, food banks, and law enforcement, and it is costing American taxpayers $160 billion a year to support. Worst of all, it has introduced into our country the most violent criminal gangs and offenders on the planet.

It has also brought to a head the fundamental question of whether any person in the world can break into our country, have a baby at taxpayer expense, have that baby declared an American citizen, and then use that as a pretext to remain.

Now, President Trump has issued an executive order challenging that notion for all future births. The Democrats call this a threat to democracy and a constitutional crisis. That is what they call anything they disagree with these days, but it is neither. It is the Constitution functioning as it should.

The President has created a dispute arising from a difference of opinion in interpreting the Constitution. Opponents in this dispute have appealed to the courts, as they should. Now, the courts will resolve this dispute under the terms of our Constitution.

Meanwhile, I have a question for the Democrats: If the 14th Amendment actually confers automatic citizenship to anyone born here, wouldn't it have said all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States? That is simple enough.

That is not what it says. It says: ``All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.''

What does that mean? We know that it means the children of former slaves are citizens. That is its stated purpose and the plain language of the amendment passed, by the way, over the objections of the Democratic Party. We know from the congressional debate that its authors understood it to exclude foreign nationals who are merely passing through the country.

The question of our time is whether those who have illegally entered our country in defiance of our laws and who are subject to deportation under those laws can be considered as having accepted the jurisdiction of the laws that their very presence defies.

The Supreme Court has never considered this question. The closest it came was the Ark decision 127 years ago, but that applied to legal immigrants who had accepted the jurisdiction of the United States by obeying its immigration laws and who had taken up legal, permanent residence subject to a treaty ratified by the Senate.

Does the President have the authority by executive order to clear up this matter as part of his organic constitutional responsibility to take care that the laws be faithfully executed? I don't know. Obama claimed the authority to create a legal residency for DACA beneficiaries out of thin air, so maybe he does. The Court will ultimately rule.

Does the Congress have the authority to clear up this matter by statute? Only if that statute doesn't contradict the Constitution.

Here is the fine point of the matter: If the 14th Amendment does not give automatic birthright citizenship to the children of those here illegally and temporarily, then no law should be necessary to deny them citizenship in the future because no law ever extended that right in the first place. In that case, the President's executive order is merely declaratory of existing law.

Several lower courts have stayed the President's executive order, and no one is screaming that is a constitutional crisis, even though many of us strenuously disagree with those judges just as strenuously as the left disagrees with the President.

Ultimately, though, we have faith in our Constitution, and as the case progresses through the courts, we will get

a clear and authoritative ruling that will then determine whether the President's order stands or whether Congress needs to act either by statute or constitutional amendment.

To call this a constitutional crisis is the kind of absurd and juvenile hyperbole that passes for argument these days by the woke left. I look forward to returning to a society someday when we can have civil discussions over high principles as our Founders envisioned.

Mr. Chairman, this resolution not only saves an average family about $16,000 over the next 10 years through reduced spending, it also prevents a crushing $1,500 annual tax hike on a struggling family earning just $75,000 a year. I have news for the minority leader: That ain't rich. They can't afford it, and they don't deserve it.

The details will come in the reconciliation bill which can't be drafted until this resolution passes, so our Democratic colleagues ought to wait to see what the committees actually propose before setting their hair on fire.

The people didn't save our country last November. They gave us the tools

to save it. It is now up to us to use them. This resolution unlocks a powerful tool, and it is a critical step to stop the reckless theft of the earnings, the productivity, the prosperity, and the dreams of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 5, I call up the bill (H.R. 35) to impose criminal

and immigration penalties for intentionally fleeing a pursuing Federal officer while operating a motor vehicle, 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 insert extraneous material on H.R. 35.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the great tragedies that came of the Democrats' 4 years of open-border policies was the number of fatalities of American citizens and law enforcement officers that were caused by high-speed chases of human and drug smugglers and illegal aliens who poured across our southern border.

The Democrats' open-border policies incentivized and encouraged these tragedies by creating the conditions that made these deadly high-speed chases commonplace.

Just last year, Border Patrol agents in Eagle Pass told us that in the Del Rio sector alone, the cartels were making $32 million every week from human smuggling. That is just one sector of the southwest border.

These policies created an enormous incentive that emboldened criminals and cartels and human smugglers and illegal aliens alike. High-speed chases with smugglers occurred almost daily in these border communities, placing both law enforcement officials and innocent Americans in grave danger.

For example, last year, criminals led the Texas Department of Public Safety officers on a high-speed chase outside of Del Rio as they attempted to smuggle half a dozen illegal aliens into the interior of our country. At least one of the smugglers himself was a foreign national from Nicaragua. Amazingly, the Biden-Harris administration rewarded this criminal alien with a work authorization.

These criminals also smuggle deadly drugs, like fentanyl, which has poisoned thousands of Americans.

Roughly 1 month ago, in California, a high-speed chase ensued after two men had their car referred for secondary inspection at a port of entry. Border Patrol officers ultimately stopped the men and recovered nearly 5 pounds of fentanyl. That is enough to kill more than 100,000 Americans.

At the beginning of the last Congress, Cochise County, Arizona, Sheriff Mark Dannels, a 38-year veteran of law enforcement, testified before the House Judiciary Committee. Sheriff Dannels told us about a woman named ``Wanda'' from his county who was killed while driving to her own 65th birthday party by an individual who was evading law enforcement while smuggling illegal aliens. She had hoped to enjoy some time at the party with her son, who was receiving treatment for stage IV cancer. According to Sheriff Dannels, the criminal who caused the crash was smuggling illegal aliens when he fled from law enforcement officers, blew through a red light, and crashed into Wanda's car, cutting it in half and instantly killing her.

These dangerous car crashes kill our law enforcement heroes, as well. On December 7, 2022, Border Patrol Officer Raul Humberto Gonzalez got up, got dressed, and he left for work. His family would never see him again. He was killed later that day in Mission, Texas, doing his job trying to protect our country. A group of illegal aliens led him on a high-speed chase that ended in a fatal wreck that took his life.

Authorities do not have the tools to fully prosecute and punish these criminals. Currently the failure to yield to a

Border Patrol agent or any other law enforcement officer assisting Border Patrol is not explicitly criminalized under Federal law.

At the same time, there are no specific immigration consequences for foreign nationals, including illegal aliens, who intentionally evade the Border Patrol. In other words, criminals and foreign nationals have little incentive not to evade them.

On November 5, the American people sent a strong message to the world: There is only one pathway into the United States, and that is to obey our laws.

This bill sends a message that we will no longer tolerate those who evade our law enforcement officers who are upholding those laws.

H.R. 35 is named in honor and in memory of Agent Gonzalez. It ensures that those who endanger border communities and law enforcement officers by failing to yield to Border Patrol agents will face meaningful consequences, ensuring these illegal aliens can be prosecuted and will be ineligible for immigration relief under our laws.

This legislation also provides escalating criminal penalties if the evasion results in serious bodily injury or death to another person.

Last session, this bill passed on a bipartisan basis, although 154 of our Democratic colleagues opposed this commonsense measure. Taking their cue, Senate Democrats refused to take it up last year. That is inexplicable to me. I don't understand that.

I hope that today, after Democrats have had time to reflect on the matter, especially in light of the decisive verdict of the American people last November, that more of our Democratic colleagues will have seen the light and will join us in protecting the American people from these dangerous criminals and cartels and human smugglers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Arizona Representative Juan Ciscomani for his leadership on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend argues that this bill is unnecessary because aliens who are convicted of fleeing an immigration checkpoint are already removable. That part is correct, but there are no corresponding grounds for inadmissibility.

This bill fixes that omission. It also expands the law to someone who is deliberately fleeing the Border Patrol not only from a checkpoint but from anywhere within 100 miles of the border.

This begs the larger question: If, as the Democrats say, this bill simply restates the existing law, then why are they opposing it?

They say you should prove that the alien knows that they are evading the

Border Patrol when they initiate a high-speed chase through a crowded neighborhood. He forgets that there are many, many acts that are themselves deadly and dangerous that we sanction. Drunk driving is such an offense. It doesn't matter if you intended to kill somebody when you got behind that wheel drunk. The behavior itself is deadly and dangerous and punishable under law.

Leading a high-speed chase through a crowded highway is also such an inherently dangerous act, which my friends on the other side of the aisle, for some inexplicable reason, want to excuse.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Democrats even listen to themselves. The gentlewoman just told us that this bill is simply duplicative of existing law and, therefore, a farce. A moment later, the gentlewoman told us that it is a dangerous expansion of existing law. I ask them to pick at least one side or the other and stick to it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz).

Mr. Speaker, I assure the gentlewoman that the innocent victims of these high-speed chases come from all races and all backgrounds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Ciscomani), the author of this measure.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I first am tempted to address my friend's obsession with Elon Musk. The situation is pretty simple: A new boss takes over and he brings in an auditor. The auditor calls in the Democrats and says, I would like to see your expense account receipts, and the Democrats go absolutely berserk.

Now, what does that tell you about what has been going on with our money all this time?

My experience has been that the most closely guarded secrets of government are not those that are marked ``top secret,'' they are the secrets that are embarrassing.

Elon Musk is embarrassing the Democrats, which is why they have unleashed this torrent of invective, vitriol, and character assassination upon him, and why they have spent so much time today obsessing on Elon Musk rather than the bill before us to protect the victims of illegal immigration that they themselves unleashed upon our country.

Mr. Speaker, Scott Jennings of CNN recently wondered aloud: What possesses the Democrats to constantly take the 20 percent side of every major issue, whether it is waste in government, men competing in girls' sports, crime and homelessness, or, in this case, border security? They seem instinctively to reject a commonsense position expressed by 80 percent or more of the electorate and double down on the 20 percent or less position taken only by the lunatic fringe of the radical left, and they are doing that again today.

High-speed chases due to human and drug smuggling at the border have claimed the lives of far too many Americans, including a Border Patrol agent who was simply trying to protect his local community. This bill, named in his memory, makes it a Federal crime to evade the Border Patrol or local law enforcement acting in support of the Border Patrol within 100 miles of the international border.

If you are a foreign national, it makes a conviction or admission of such a crime grounds for inadmissibility and removability. If you endanger our local law enforcement officers or innocent bystanders by initiating a high-speed chase, we will throw you in prison for a long time. Then, we will send you packing when you get out.

I suspect this bill has the support of well over 80 percent of the American people, yet once again, the Democrats oppose it. I suspect most will vote against it, as they did last year.

The American people have seen this unfold in this Chamber time and time again. They clearly understand what is at stake, and they well understand the implications to the sovereignty of our country and to the safety of our communities. Last November, they gave us the votes to pass this legislation, and they gave us a President who will sign it. Let's get on with it.

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