Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Citizens Against Government Waste has released its ``2024 Congressional Pig Book,'' documenting the fiscal rot that is taking place with congressional earmarks.

CAGW documents 8,222 congressional earmarks in last year's appropriations bills. That is up more than 11 percent in a single year, costing taxpayers $22.7 billion, the fifth highest amount of earmark spending since CAGW began tracking it in 1991.

I thank Tom Schatz and his staff for continuing to shine the light on one of Congress' most tawdry and wasteful practices, in which individual Congressmen bypass merit-driven competition and instead personally direct spending to pet projects in their own districts or to favored supporters.

CAGW notes that ``Earmarks continue to provide the most benefit to the most powerful legislators. In fiscal year 2024, the 90 members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, making up only 17 percent of the Congress, were responsible for 42.2 percent of the earmarks and 35.2 percent of the money.'' One House Appropriations member grabbed 13 earmarks, costing taxpayers a quarter of a billion dollars.

Although all spending bills start in the House, and the voters elected a Republican House for that reason, Democrats received three- quarters of the earmarks, 8,571 to the Republicans 2,931. They are all bad, though.

Since the Magna Carta, it has been a settled principle of good governance that the power to spend money should be separate from the power to appropriate it. That is at the heart of our constitutional separation of powers: The President spends money but cannot appropriate it, and Congress appropriates money but cannot spend it.

Earmarks combine these two powers, and the inevitable result is waste, logrolling, porkbarrel spending, and, ultimately, corruption. It is no coincidence that so many of the congressional scandals involving political corruption or laughably absurd projects are the result of earmarks.

Worthy projects in open competitive bidding don't need earmarks. They rise or fall on their own merits. If there is such a thing as a good earmark, the price to be paid is all of the bad ones, and that is a high price, indeed.

Members can and should advocate for their districts and make the case for projects they deem worthy of the money that Congress has appropriated. The problem with earmarks is blurring these two roles and having individual Members both advocate and decide.

Many say they don't trust this President and his deputies to administer these funds appropriately and evenhandedly, and I share that sentiment. If you don't trust the President to administer the funds that we appropriate, then don't give him the money.

We hear that earmarks simply ensure that local governments get a fair break. No. What they actually do is turn the Federal budget into a grab bag for local pork spending by the most powerful Members of Congress and undermine the central tenet of federalism that local projects should be financed by local communities and Federal spending reserved for the Nation's general welfare.

When a local government proposes an earmark, what is it saying? It is saying the project is so low on its priority list that they don't dare spend their own taxpayers' money. Yet, they are perfectly happy to have taxpayers in other communities foot the bill.

The result is a long list of dubious projects that rob St. Petersburg to pay St. Paul for projects that St. Petersburg doesn't benefit from and that St. Paul doesn't deem worthy enough to spend its own money on.

Finally, it is said that earmarks can grease legislation by buying off the votes of individual Members. Add a few local projects for that Member, and suddenly, a bill he would never vote for on its merits becomes a local imperative, overriding his sound judgment. Explain to me exactly how that is a good thing.

Paying interest on the national debt now exceeds our entire defense spending for the first time in our history, and history warns us that countries that bankrupt themselves aren't around very long. If we are going to avoid the terrible fate of so many nations before ours, we have to end congressional profligacy, and earmarks are the most glaring example of that waste.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Citizens Against Government Waste for continuing to expose the excesses and inequities of earmarks and to hold accountable those politicians from both parties who are responsible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

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

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in American history, a Presidential administration is trying to jail its opponent, and not just any opponent, but a former President of the United States.

To pursue this objective, Mr. Biden's Attorney General approved an unprecedented armed raid on a former President's home, despite strenuous objections by career officials and the local field office that normally would have had jurisdiction.

He then created a new position without the constitutional requirement of congressional action or Senate confirmation. He filled that position with one Jack Smith, despite the central role Smith had played in the IRS scandal that targeted and harassed Tea Party volunteers and despite a long history of prosecutorial misconduct.

The cooked-up charge was the mishandling of classified documents.

Shortly thereafter, we discovered that as Vice President, Joe Biden had done the same thing, yet, as President, Mr. Trump had absolute authority to declassify materials at will, as Vice President Joe Biden did not.

As President, Mr. Trump had absolute authority to determine what records to keep upon leaving office. As Vice President, Joe Biden did not. Yet, the Biden administration's appointed special counsel in the Biden case concluded that although Biden had ``willfully retained and disclosed classified materials . . . when he was a private citizen,'' criminal charges were not warranted because he is ``a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.''

Well, the principal justification for this glaring double standard in the handling of these two cases was the interview with Mr. Biden, yet all we have is the unverified transcript to determine the validity of this otherwise inexplicable decision.

Mr. Biden cannot claim executive privilege. This was not a policy discussion, and he has already released the transcript. It is vital that our committee know if the transcript is complete and whether it accurately portrays the circumstances under which that decision was made.

Two Trump officials have been sentenced to prison for their failure to honor congressional subpoenas, and that case was far weaker than this one because at the time, Congress was not exercising oversight or considering legislation.

In this case, the Judiciary Committee is doing both. Yet once again, we have this glaring legal double standard at play.

I expect the Attorney General to thumb his nose at the citation. We have come to expect that of him. However, the House Judiciary Committee is charged with defending and upholding the rule of law and its fundamental principle of equal justice under the law. If we are going to restore them, this resolution is an indispensable step that we must take today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley), my colleague and neighbor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close when the gentleman is finished, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the American justice system is the pride of our Nation. It is the envy of the world. Its central principle is the equal application of justice under law.

This is why justice is depicted as blindfolded. It doesn't matter who comes before it; all are to be treated equally. It is this central principle that gives the law its legitimacy. Without it, the law becomes raw force devoid of legitimacy, and respect for the law gives way to the law of the jungle. This is the well-trodden path many nations before us have taken to despotism and ruin.

It is the responsibility of the House Judiciary Committee to protect the rule of law and its equal application. It is our responsibility to guard our Nation against the convulsions that have commonly afflicted banana republics whenever a ruling party tries to jail its opponents.

The radically different handling of the documents cases involving Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden should ring alarm bells in every corner of the land.

The principal justification for this radical, unequal application of law is the interview that the Judiciary Committee seeks through ancient constitutional prerogatives.

It is vital that we understand the whole context of this decision, to verify the accuracy of the transcript, and to determine the extent that this conversation informed the decision that strikes at the heart not only of our rule of law but the right of the American people to guide their own destiny through fair, free, and unfettered elections.

Congress has a constitutional right and a constitutional duty to seek this information, and the Attorney General has a legal obligation to provide it, an obligation he refuses to honor.

This Congress has enforced this prerogative in past cases under far less demanding circumstances than these.

In order to assure that we have discharged our responsibilities, we have to compel the Attorney General to discharge his, and that is what this citation seeks to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, the American justice system has always been the pride of our Nation and the envy of the world.

In America, justice is portrayed as blindfolded because it doesn't matter whether those who seek it are rich or poor, weak or powerful, or Republican or Democratic. Equal justice under law means exactly that: Everyone is treated the same.

It is this central principle that gives the law its moral authority. Without it, law simply becomes raw force, devoid of legitimacy. Respect for the law breaks down, and without that respect, civilization gives way to the law of the jungle. This is the well-trodden path to tyranny, taken by many nations throughout history.

We Americans have always believed that it can't happen here. Yet, it has happened here, and we are watching it in real time.

The turning of the law against our democracy began with the IRS harassment and intimidation of the Tea Party movement during the Obama administration. One of the principal players was the same Jack Smith who the Biden administration tasked to pursue Federal charges against Mr. Biden's political opponents.

During the 2016 election, corrupt officials at the FBI used the terrifying powers they were entrusted to advance a monstrous lie concocted by the Democrats that Donald Trump was conspiring with the Russians.

Democratic political activists within the government used that lie to spy on Mr. Trump's campaign, terrify his supporters, and interfere with the election. When that failed, they used it to undermine and obstruct the lawfully elected President.

Nothing comes close to the demons the Democrats have now unleashed. They have broken every political norm, civil tradition, and due process protection that has shielded Americans from the convulsions of banana republics. We can now clearly see the full power of leftist lawfare.

Politically corrupt prosecutors, ethically compromised judges, and a partisan and biased jury pool can concoct specious cases and turn them against their political opponents under circumstances that make the show trials of Russia look like models of enlightened jurisprudence.

The genesis of these cases is damning. All were brought when Donald Trump dared to run again for the Presidency. Two were brought by leftist prosecutors who campaigned on targeting Donald Trump. Biden's number three official in the Justice Department left to spearhead the New York prosecution. The Atlanta prosecutors strategized for hours with the White House counsel in advance of filing that case. Biden's Attorney General dispatched Jack Smith, with a long history of prosecutorial abuses, to apply a glaring double standard to prosecute a former President over a civil dispute involving the handling of records.

Legal experts from left to right have excoriated the double standards and violations of due process and have condemned the appalling judicial misconduct of the judge.

Now, the Democrats believe this is their path to electoral success: abusing our laws to declare their opponent a convicted felon.

In the history of kangaroo courts and despotic regimes, I would say that Mr. Trump has some pretty good company: Nelson Mandela, a convicted felon; Natan Sharansky, a convicted felon; and Sir Thomas More, a convicted felon. Under George III's 1775 Proclamation of Rebellion, every one of the American Founders would have been a convicted felon.

By traducing the American traditions of political tolerance, respect for democracy, equal protection of the laws, and simple fair play, the left is destroying the legitimacy of our legal institutions and the respect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle once commanded in a concerted campaign to subvert democracy itself.

I still believe our American judicial system will ultimately prove itself resilient and this glaring miscarriage of justice will eventually be overturned, but the damage that this has already done to the rule of law and the sanctity of our elections is immense.

After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto supposedly said that he was afraid that all they had done was awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve. I believe the Democrats who are celebrating this travesty are about to discover the same thing. The American people are known throughout history for their common sense, their innate fairness, and their devotion to the institutions that have maintained their freedom through 12 generations.

The brazenness of the abuses by this administration and its confederates is as obvious to any who care to look, and an awareness is building that democracy is, indeed, at stake in this election.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to present H.R. 1555 for consideration today. This measure names the post office in Modesto, California, in honor and memory of Corporal Michael D. Anderson, Jr.

This bill has the unanimous support of the Modesto City Council, the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors, the entire California congressional delegation, and the House Oversight Committee.

There are those who scoff at post office naming bills like this. Such smug critics simply either don't appreciate or don't understand the sacrifices that these bills recognize and the heroism behind the events that give rise to them.

Let me tell you a little bit about the young man this bill honors today. Mike Anderson was a kid who grew up in Modesto, a farm town in California's Central Valley that has always maintained the values and traditions of middle America.

Mike reflected that in every way. He loved skateboarding, snowboarding, and motorcycles. He loved tinkering with cars and going camping. Most importantly, he loved his family, his friends, and, above all, his country.

As he graduated from Johansen High School, he could look forward to a long and happy lifetime ahead of him. However, in September of that year, America was attacked. Without hesitation, he stepped forward to defend his country and all that it stands for--the simple freedoms and uniquely American values that produce model towns like Modesto and model citizens like Mike Anderson.

He enlisted in the United States Marine Corps, where he quickly distinguished himself. He became a member of the Fleet Antiterrorism Security Teams, or FAST company, an elite Marine Corps team designed to fight terror around the world. In that capacity, he received a letter of commendation from U.S. Ambassador James Foley for defending the U.S. Embassy during riots that were directed at it.

In September 2004, Corporal Anderson deployed to Iraq to participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom, where he was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division of the First Marine Expeditionary Force.

The Modesto community rallied around Mike and raised money to ensure that he had the best equipment available, including three different sets of protective goggles.

Eleven days before Christmas, on December 14, 2004, Corporal Anderson was leading marines and Iraqi soldiers in urban clearing operations of the insurgent-occupied buildings in the city of Fallujah. He was the first into a stronghold, and there, he was tragically killed in action. He was 21 years old.

Corporal Anderson had been scheduled to leave Iraq just a few months later to return to his family, where they had already planned a joyous family reunion and vacation.

Corporal Anderson showed tremendous bravery and incredible courage throughout his service and especially on that day, his last day, in Fallujah, as is reflected in his military decorations, including two Purple Hearts, the Marine Corps Achievement Medal with the ``V'' attachment for valor, as well as the Combat Action Ribbon.

What stands out the most in the memories of his comrades in arms were his self-sacrifice and concern for the marines in his squad. His father remembers: ``He was more worried about telling me about one of the guys in his unit first before telling me about what happened to him. He felt that since he was a squad leader, he had to take care of his men first.''

James Michener's haunting question echoes on such exploits: ``Where do we get such men?''

We get them from little towns like Modesto, and we get them from loving families like the Andersons, decent young men and women with promising futures who are willing to leave the safety and comfort of hearth and home when their country needs them and to step into harm's way to protect their families, their neighbors, their countrymen, and, above all, the cause of freedom.

A more important question is: What would we do without them?

A few feet from here in the Capitol rotunda is a fresco titled: ``The Apotheosis of Washington.'' It depicts General Washington, in uniform, ascending to the heavens, flanked by victory and freedom and surrounded by the essence and fruits of our free Nation.

In that depiction, Washington beckons. From little towns like Modesto, California, decent young men and women with happy lives and promising futures, like Mike Anderson, Jr., have answered his call.

I don't know how their families can bear it, but I do know what we owe them. I do know that we can never repay that debt except to honor their memory and keep their sacrifice always in mind.

That is what bills like this are all about: to honor and remember those among us who gave up everything to proclaim liberty throughout all the land and unto all the inhabitants thereof.

Madam Speaker, the people of Modesto, California, and the family of Corporal Anderson, his parents, Angie and Michael Sr., as well as his two little sisters, Callie and Allie, and a grateful nation ask that the post office of his hometown be named to honor and memorialize the life, service, patriotism, heroism, and ultimate sacrifice of Corporal Michael D. Anderson, Jr., United States Marine Corps.

Madam Speaker, in America, the citizens are the sovereign, and we govern through the votes we cast. Allowing foreign nationals to cancel out the votes of American citizens makes a mockery of our democracy, and it robs Americans of our sovereign right to direct our own government and decide our own destiny.

The fact that Democrats enacted such a law into the Capital City of our Nation and in other jurisdictions across the country and defend it today on this floor speaks volumes of how far that party has drifted to the left and what a grave threat their policies now pose to the most fundamental institutions and rights that we cherish as Americans. Only the American people can change that, and only if the sanctity of our elections can be protected.

One more point: Washington, D.C., is unlike any other town or community in our Nation. Washington, D.C., belongs to the American people, who retain through their Constitution the exclusive right to govern it through their elected Representatives. This outrageous law is the strongest argument yet for Congress to take back America's Capital City for America and to take back America from the radical left.

Mr. Speaker, on December 8, 1941, Franklin Roosevelt stood in this very Hall and asked for a declaration of war against the government that had attacked our fleet the day before at Pearl Harbor, and he solemnly pledged to win through to absolute victory.

On October 7, Hamas targeted and butchered innocent and unarmed women and children. Israel not only has a right to defeat Hamas, it has a moral duty to do so. The killing on both sides can only end with the unconditional surrender of Hamas. The sooner that day comes, the better for all humanity.

Now to hasten that day, the President requested, and the Congress provided, the precision bombs and other munitions that Israel needs to quickly bring this war to an end while minimizing civilian casualties. Now that same President is withholding that aid while sending billions of dollars of supplies into Gaza before Hamas has surrendered.

This act is treacherous, and it must not stand. This measure says so.

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. 8146.

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

Mr. Chair, on Inauguration Day of 2021, our borders were secure. The Trump remain in Mexico policy had cut phony asylum claims to a trickle. The border wall was nearing completion. The court-ordered deportations were being enforced. By the end of that day, President Biden had reversed those policies, and thus began the greatest illegal mass migration in history.

Since that day, he has allowed 6.9 million illegal migrants to enter our country and demand free food, free clothing, free legal assistance, free education, free shelter, free lodging, free phones, and free cash. Except, of course, it is not the least bit free. It all comes out of the earnings of American families and out of the services that we set aside for Americans in need.

Unlike legal immigrants who obey our laws and do everything our country asks of them, the first act of these 6.9 million aliens who have illegally entered our country is to commit a Federal crime. I have watched them personally taunt our Border Patrol at the border as they do so.

Woke cities and States have passed sanctuary laws that forbid our law enforcement officials to turn over illegal aliens who have committed other crimes to ICE for deportation as the law requires. This administration has made these policies national by refusing to enforce over a million court-ordered deportations.

It shouldn't surprise us that many who are willing to violate our immigration laws are also willing to violate the rest of our laws, as well. The number of terrorist suspects that the Border Patrol has encountered has ballooned exponentially, and law enforcement officials are warning that among the 1.9 million got-aways--mostly single, military-aged men--is likely a dangerous fifth column, which could soon launch devastating attacks within our borders.

Fentanyl brought in through the open border is killing hundreds of Americans every day. The Democrats' sanctuary policies hamstring attempts to deport criminal illegal aliens. Worst of all, the admission of untold thousands of the most vicious gang members on the planet is now producing a terrible butcher's bill of murders and assaults on Americans.

When the Federation for American Immigration Reform looked at the requests by States to be reimbursed for the cost of incarcerating aliens, they found that immigrants are 231 percent more likely jailed for crimes in California, 440 percent more likely in New Jersey, and 60 percent more likely in Texas, just to name a few.

Immigrants are 231 percent more likely to be jailed in California, according to their own SCAAP numbers. You won't find that anywhere else because it is illegal in California to otherwise report the immigration status of criminals and criminal suspects. By their criteria, not a single crime is committed by illegals in California, yet their jails are overflowing with them.

As of last December, there were at least 617,000 aliens on Immigration and Customs Enforcement's non-detained docket who have criminal convictions or pending criminal charges. Yet, these dangerous offenders are out on American streets, free to re-offend.

This past year, Mr. Biden removed 60 percent fewer criminal illegal aliens than Trump did in 2019 despite an exponential increase of illegal aliens entering our country, and we are seeing the results every day in murders and assaults on America's streets and in empty chairs at Americans' family dinner tables.

Earlier this year, New York City Police Commissioner Edward Caban declared that ``a wave of migrant crime has washed over our city.'' He should know because, earlier this year, a group of illegal aliens brutally assaulted two NYPD officers. New York Mayor Eric Adams described the assault as ``an attack on the foundation of our symbol of safety.'' He then called on the city council to consider if there should be more collaboration with Federal immigration officials. I suppose it is better late than never.

The bill before us today, H.R. 8146, the Police Our Border Act, requires the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress on the impact of the Biden border policies on law enforcement officers. This report would document officer safety concerns that are linked to increased cross-border movement, such as fentanyl exposure and assaults on law enforcement officers. The report would also examine the overall burden of this unfolding tragedy on law enforcement capabilities and officer morale.

Our men and women in blue continue to protect our communities even when our communities don't fully support them. We owe them better as a nation. With this measure, we declare our determination to recognize and document the threats they face so that we can enact measures to make it harder for a President to ever again unleash these threats upon the American people.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, when my friend complains about partisan Republican rhetoric, I would advise him to listen to his own constituents who are begging their Representatives in New York and Chicago and Denver whose social services are being overwhelmed by the tidal wave of illegal immigration that this administration has unleashed and that my friend has defended every day in this House.

He complains that the term ``Biden border crisis'' isn't defined. He might want to open his eyes and look around him or open his ears to hear the pleas of his own constituents.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. D'Esposito), the author of this measure.

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

Mr. Chair, my friend calls the Senate bill the only viable bill.

If it is so viable, then where is it?

The Senate bill could not be passed by the Senate.

H.R. 2 was passed out of this House and did ultimately receive, I believe, 47 votes in the Senate. The Democrats love to tout the Senate bill. That bill would not have ended Biden's open-border policies. It would have institutionalized them.

Current law gives the President full authority to secure our border. Trump proved that. It requires asylum claimants to be detained. Trump did that.

This bill that he talks about would leave future Presidents powerless to secure the border until illegal immigration reaches 4,000 a day, 1.5 million a year, and it would have required that they be released into our country. That is the Democrats' idea of border security, a guaranteed 4,000 illegal aliens being released into our country every day.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

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

Mr. Chair, in response to that tirade, let me just remind the gentlewoman that 6.9 million illegal immigrants have been admitted into our country in violation of our immigration laws since this administration took office.

The gentlewoman speaks of all the taxpayer money that she generously volunteers to pour into our social services. Well, I have news for her: That safety net has been shredded by their open-border policies.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that just in the last year the cost to our public schools is $70 billion just to educate the children of the illegals whom they have admitted into this country and $22 billion in costs to our hospitals.

Now, I submit to you, Mr. Chair, that if Republicans were to suggest we should cut $70 billion from public education or $22 billion from our public hospitals, there would be complete outrage on the other side of the aisle, and yet that is exactly what their open-border policies are costing us right now. That is a travesty.

There is one way to solve this, and that is to secure our borders as we had accomplished under President Trump.

That is why there are so many Members over there right now to defend a President who actually is serious about defending our borders.

Mr. Chair, I am ready to close when the gentlewoman is, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

To sum up, without law enforcement, there is no law, and without law, there is no civilization. Without immigration enforcement, there are no borders. Without borders, there is no country.

This is where the woke left is taking us, and it is time for Americans to decide how much farther we want to allow them to take us down this dismal and dangerous road.

I think the American people are entitled to ask this administration and its apologists in this Congress: How do we make our streets safer by making it all but impossible to deport criminal illegal aliens, as the law requires? How do we make our families safer by flooding our communities with deadly fentanyl?

How do we make our children safer by not vetting every person who enters our country to keep the criminals out? How do we make our neighborhoods safer by refusing to prosecute criminal illegal aliens to the fullest extent of the law? How do we make our highways safer by creating the conditions of deadly high-speed chases and drunk driving? How do we protect our country as untold numbers of terrorists enter among the 1.9 million known got-aways who have entered under Joe Biden's nose? How do we make our communities safer as criminal gangs and criminal cartels set up shop in our cities for their lethal business of child trafficking, drug trafficking, extortion, and crime?

These are the questions that have gone unanswered since this administration took office and with which our local law enforcement officials must grapple every day at the peril of their own lives in order to protect ours.

The Democrats just don't seem to care, but America cares. Americans are dealing with this entirely preventable crisis every day, and our law enforcement officers are the heroes who protect our families and our communities every day. We owe it to them to document the truth, to acknowledge it, and to act on it. That is what this bill would do, and I urge the House to adopt it.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, who does the gentlewoman think she is kidding? Who does the gentlewoman suggest we assign responsibility for this catastrophe that has overwhelmed our country and its social services, its criminal justice system, and its citizens?

On January 20, 2021, the border was secure, the Trump policies were working. On that day, our laws didn't change, the Presidency changed. On that day, the Trump policies were reversed by one person, Joseph Biden.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. D'Esposito).

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1227, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 1210) condemning the Biden border crisis and the tremendous burdens law enforcement officers face as a result, 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 include extraneous material on H. Res. 1210.

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

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1210 comes before us as thousands of frontline law enforcement officers come here to this Capitol to ask for our help to restore a justice system that was once the envy of the world but, in recent years, has been undermined by woke district attorneys who refuse to enforce our laws, woke city councils that insult and defund our law enforcement, and woke Federal officials who refuse to secure our border, which is becoming an increasing source of deadly drugs, terrorists, criminal gangs, and criminal cartels that illegally cross our borders daily.

Just a week ago, I noted on this floor that on the first day that Joe Biden took office, he rescinded the successful remain in Mexico policy that had slowed phony asylum claims to a trickle, completely blocked completion of the border wall, and ordered ICE to stop enforcing court- ordered deportations. Thus began the largest illegal mass migration in history.

I need to update the numbers this week that I cited last week. To date, this administration has now deliberately released a total of 4.9 million illegal aliens into our communities, and it has allowed another 1.9 million known got-aways to evade Border Patrol as the Border Patrol has been overwhelmed.

With the new numbers combined, there are nearly 6.8 million illegal aliens who have entered this country because of the Democrats' open- border policies. That is a population larger than the entire State of Indiana, our 17th largest State, with nine Congressional Districts.

Now, I expect the Democrats will complain that we are bringing up yet another measure condemning these policies. Well, I have news for them. They need to get used to it. We are going to keep bringing it up until these policies are reversed or until the people can elect an administration that can and will.

I suspect we will hear the Democrats today, as we have on so many past debates, assert that immigrants are more law-abiding than Americans. Well, listen carefully to what they say. They make no distinction between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, and that is a supreme insult to the millions of legal immigrants who enter our country every year by obeying our laws, waiting patiently in line, and doing everything our country asks of them. Legal immigrants come here, pledge to pull their weight, not to be a burden on others, to obey our laws, and to love and defend our country.

Illegal immigrants come here under very different circumstances. Their first act is to commit a Federal crime by illegally entering our country. Their second act is to demand free food, shelter, medical care, clothing, education, transportation, and legal services.

I have watched them at the border taunting our Border Patrol as they illegally cross into our country. To equate their lawless behavior with law-abiding, hardworking, and patriotic legal immigrants is an outrage, and my colleagues who do so should be ashamed of themselves.

The number of terrorist suspects the Border Patrol has encountered has ballooned exponentially, and law enforcement officials are warning that among the 1.9 million known got-aways--mostly single military-aged men--is likely a dangerous fifth column which could soon launch devastating attacks within our borders.

Fentanyl brought in through the open border is killing hundreds of Americans every day.

Democrats' sanctuary policies hamstring attempts to deport criminal illegal aliens. Worst of all, the admission of untold thousands of the most vicious gang members on the planet are now producing a terrible butcher's bill of murders and assaults upon Americans.

Their contention that illegal immigrants are more law-abiding is simply gaslighting.

Here are the real numbers. When the Federation for American Immigration Reform looked at the actual numbers reported by State prisons in order to get reimbursement from the Federal Government, they discovered the tragic truth. Now, again, these are the requests States make to be reimbursed for the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens, and those numbers reveal that aliens are 231 percent more likely to be jailed for crimes in California, 440 percent more likely in New Jersey, and 60 percent more likely in Texas. Just to name a few.

Madam Speaker, aliens are 231 percent more likely to be jailed in California according to their own SCAAP numbers. You won't find that anywhere else because it is illegal in California to otherwise report the immigration status of criminals and criminal suspects, so by their criteria, not a single crime is ever committed by illegals in California, yet at the same time they report their jails are overflowing.

This is lunacy, and it has got to stop.

Our law enforcement officers know this because they deal with this crisis every day at the peril of their own lives. Our angel families know this all too well, as they grieve their loved ones lost to this entirely preventable tragedy.

Now, the House can and has written laws that will make it easier for future Presidents like President Trump to secure our borders and make it harder for future Presidents like Joe Biden to open them, but ultimately, this is an enforcement problem.

When I visited with the Border Patrol agents in Yuma last year, I reminded them that Congress writes laws but cannot enforce them. I asked them what laws they needed us to write, and they unanimously answered: We don't need new laws; we need to enforce our existing laws. When Republicans visited Eagle Pass in January, the sector chief there said: I am standing in front of an open fire hydrant with a bucket. I don't need more buckets. I need somebody to turn off the hydrant.

Donald Trump did that, and despite vicious opposition from the Democrats, he finally got that hydrant down to a dribble. Biden opened it full force with his first executive acts that he signed. That is a problem that can only be fixed by replacing this administration with one determined to secure our border, defend our country, protect our people, and uphold the rule of law. That can only be done by the American people at the ballot box.

Until then, Republicans in the House will keep raising this issue at every opportunity because at the moment that is all that we can do.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would remind my friend that the bill that he keeps boasting about would tie the hands of any future President to use existing law to secure our border as President Trump did until illegal crossings reach 4,000 a day. That is what they refer to when they praise the Senate bill as the strongest border bill in decades, a bill that would make it impossible to do what Donald Trump did with our existing laws.

Those laws didn't change on Inauguration Day. The President changed, and the new President reversed the policies of the Trump administration and introduced this terrible crisis upon our country.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins), the author of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close if the gentleman from New York is.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I have to remind my friend that the Senate could not pass its bill. The House passed our bill, and the difference is stark. As I said, the Senate bill forbids any future President from using the powers that Donald Trump used to secure our borders until illegal crossings reached 4,000 a day.

He is not required to take any action until they reach 5,000 a day, and even then he must still allow 1,500 illegal crossings every day. That is the Democrats' idea of border security, and it is a farce.

This debate encapsulates the differences between the two parties on this issue, and they are absolutely jarring. I don't need to characterize it; it speaks for itself. The American people can clearly see the difference and will need to make the most important choice of their lifetimes in just a few months.

I would simply ask: How do we make our streets safer by making it all but impossible to deport illegal aliens as the law requires?

That is what our sanctuary cities are doing.

How do we make our families safer by flooding our communities with deadly fentanyl?

How do we make our children safer by refusing to vet every person who enters our country so that we can keep the criminals out?

How do we make our neighborhoods safer by refusing to prosecute criminal illegal aliens to the fullest extent of the law?

How do we make our highways safer by creating the conditions of deadly high-speed chases and drunk driving?

How do we protect our country as untold numbers of terrorists enter among the 1.9 million known got-aways who have entered under Joe Biden's nose?

How do we make our communities safer as criminal gangs and criminal cartels set up shop in our cities for their lethal business of child trafficking, drug trafficking, extortion, and crime?

These are the questions that have gone unanswered since this administration took office and with which our local law enforcement officials must grapple every day at the peril of their own lives in order to protect ours.

It is time we thanked them for their service and their sacrifice and put the full might and fury of our Nation behind the defense of our national borders. That is what this resolution calls for. However, one thing more will be needed that Congress cannot provide, and that is a new administration.

Let us pray it comes in time to save our country.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1137, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 1112) denouncing the Biden administration's immigration policies, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 1112.

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

Mr. Speaker, in January, the Border Patrol chief in the Del Rio sector told House Republicans: I am standing in front of an open fire hydrant with a bucket. I don't need more buckets. I need somebody to shut off the hydrant.

President Trump did exactly that. His remain in Mexico policy had slowed illegal immigration to a trickle. The border wall was nearing completion with only construction gaps remaining to be closed.

ICE was actively enforcing court-ordered deportations, sending a strong signal around the world that illegal migrants would end up right back where they started, so they stopped coming.

On Inauguration Day, Mr. Biden reversed all of these successful policies, the first of more than 60 actions he has subsequently taken to undermine our immigration laws and open our border to the world.

The result has been the largest illegal mass migration in history. Since that day, over 4.6 million illegal migrants have been released into this country deliberately. While the Border Patrol has been overwhelmed, another 1.8 million known got-aways illegally entered, as well.

That is a total of 6.4 million illegals added to our population, larger than the entire State of Missouri, our 18th largest State with eight congressional districts. That is just in 3 years.

The impact has been devastating. Schools have been overwhelmed as classrooms are packed with non-English-speaking students. Hospitals have been forced to shift millions of dollars of care from Americans to illegals. In Yuma, Americans are very often sent to Tucson for maternity care because local beds are now taken by illegals.

The social safety net has been shredded by the deliberative admission of millions of impoverished illegals demanding free food, clothing, and shelter.

The number of terrorist suspects the Border Patrol has encountered has ballooned exponentially.

Law enforcement officials are warning that among the 1.8 million got- aways, mostly single, military-age men, there is likely a dangerous fifth column, which could soon launch devastating attacks within our borders.

Fentanyl brought in through the open border is killing hundreds of Americans every day. Democrats' sanctuary policies hamstring attempts to deport criminal illegal aliens. Worst of all, the admission of untold thousands of the most vicious gang members on the planet are now producing a terrible butcher's bill of murders and assaults on Americans.

This resolution speaks for Americans who have had enough, and it condemns these policies. I am afraid that is really all that we can do until the American people rise up and demand an administration and a Congress willing to restore our borders and to put Americans first.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman who says that enforcement won't fix it that enforcement did fix it under the Trump administration.

His policies produced the most secure borders we have had in our lifetimes. It was this President who reversed those policies and initiated this mass illegal migration that we are now suffering.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Tony Gonzales), the author of this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman seems to confuse legal immigrants who obey all of our laws and do everything our country asks of them with illegal immigrants whose first act is to disobey our laws.

Legal immigration is a boon to our Nation, but that is not what we are addressing here. There is no point to legal immigration if we are going to allow every immigrant who wants to do so to illegally enter our country.

The people I found who are the angriest about this crisis are the legal immigrants who came to this country obeying our laws, respecting our sovereignty, and doing everything our country asked of them, while this administration allows 6.5 million illegal immigrants to cut in line in front of them.

The ranking member would gaslight us by claiming that there were more removals under Biden than under Trump. Here are the actual numbers. Under Trump, ICE removed 935,000 illegal aliens; under Biden, 274,000. The criminal numbers are even more disturbing. This past year, Mr. Biden removed 60 percent fewer criminal illegal aliens than Trump did in 2019.

In other words, despite massive increases in illegal migration, we have seen a massive decrease in criminal removals. We are seeing the results every day in murders and assaults on American streets and at empty chairs at America's family dinner tables.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).

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

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

I would remind the gentleman who says that the President has asked for more money, when I was at the border last year in Yuma, I spoke with a group of Border Patrol agents, line agents. That is the only time in my life that Federal employees said: Don't send us any more money.

They said that because they felt that the administration would simply use that money to process more illegals into the country even faster.

This is a deliberate policy of this administration, and it won't change until this administration is changed.

As for the Senate bill the gentleman has referenced multiple times, let me remind him that the bill would not have ended Biden's open- border policies. It would have institutionalized them.

Current law gives the President full authority to secure the border. Trump proved that. Current law requires asylum claimants to be detained. Trump did that.

This bill would have left future Presidents powerless to secure the border until illegal immigration reaches 4,000 a day, 1.5 million a year, and would have required they be released into our country. That is the Democrats' idea of immigration reform: a guaranteed 4,000 illegal immigrants being released into our country every day. That is what they call a tough border bill.

H.R. 2, which was the genuine border security bill, got 46 votes in the Senate last year and Democrats' support in the House just a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro).

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

Mr. Speaker, we just heard that immigrants are less likely to break the law than native-born Americans. Tell that to the angel families whose family tables have empty chairs because of the very policy that this bill condemns.

Put aside the fact that illegal aliens shouldn't be in this country to commit crimes in the first place because when the Federation for American Immigration Reform looked at reimbursement requests from the States for the cost of locking up illegal aliens, they found that illegals are 231 percent more likely to be jailed for crimes in California, 440 percent more likely in New Jersey, and 60 percent more likely in Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Yakym).

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

Mr. Speaker, the American people need to understand that this policy is deliberate. If you voted for this administration, then this is exactly what you voted for. If you are surprised by that, then you weren't paying any attention because this is exactly what the Democrats promised to do. This is exactly what they have done, and this is exactly what they have defended for the last 3 years in this House.

The laws didn't change 3 years ago; the Presidency changed. An administration that enforced the most secure borders in our lifetimes was replaced by one that deliberately opened them to the world.

Last year, House Republicans passed legislation that will make it easier for future Presidents like Donald Trump to enforce our immigration laws and harder for Presidents like Joe Biden to undermine those laws, but that will require a new Senate and a new President.

The cold, hard truth is that this growing crisis cannot be fixed by bills that Senate Democrats won't pass and that Biden won't sign or enforce if they are signed.

This crisis can be fixed only by replacing this entire administration and their enablers and abettors in Congress with those who are devoted to securing our borders, restoring our sovereignty, defending our people, and enforcing the rule of law. That can only be done by the American people at the ballot box.

Until then, at every opportunity, we will decry and condemn these policies that are bringing such suffering and such harm upon our great Nation. Let us pray there is still time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1173, I call up the bill (H.R. 6090) to provide for the consideration of a definition of antisemitism set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance for the enforcement of Federal antidiscrimination laws concerning education programs or activities, 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. 6090.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6090 is designed to combat the deeply disturbing trend of anti-Semitic harassment in schools, colleges, and universities across the country. We are seeing it unfold right now on our television screens.

Anti-Semitic harassment on these university campuses is, unfortunately, not a completely new phenomenon. As early as 2005, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights warned that campus anti-Semitism had become a serious problem.

In 2013, a Pew Research Center survey of Jewish Americans found that experience with anti-Semitism was more prevalent among young adults in higher education.

In 2014, a Brandeis Center-Trinity College study found that anti- Semitism was particularly pervasive on college campuses, with 54 percent of Jewish students on 55 campuses having reported that they experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism during the 2013-2014 academic year.

In 2021, the Louis Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law conducted a survey of Jewish fraternity and sorority students, finding that most have felt unsafe at some point while on campus and in virtual campus settings. These fears are justified. The catalog of anti-Semitic harassment in America's top institutions of higher learning is there for everybody to see. Those incidents have increased sharply following the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks in Israel perpetrated by Hamas and its allied groups.

In late October 2023, at Cooper Union in New York, visibly Jewish students were forced to shelter inside a library as pro-Palestinian protesters tried to gain entry, banging on doors and windows, with the purpose of terrifying them.

On October 26, 2023, anti-Israel protesters assaulted multiple Jewish students at Tulane University in New Orleans.

On November 3, 2023, a Harvard law student and other anti-Israel protesters physically and verbally attacked a first-year Israeli student at the Harvard Business School while he pleaded with them to stop.

From October 7 until mid-January of 2024, the Department of Education has launched 51 investigations into complaints alleging discrimination based on actual or perceived shared ancestry in K-12 schools and colleges and universities.

From January 16, 2024, until today, the Department has launched over 45 investigations into schools and colleges. These investigations overwhelmingly concern anti-Semitic conduct in these schools.

In fact, on April 23, 2024, the Education Department launched an investigation into Columbia University, and we all know what is happening there right now. Hundreds of anti-Israel protesters have occupied Columbia University's west lawn and erected dozens of tents, disrupting campus life and creating a hostile environment for Columbia's Jewish students. Hundreds of pro-Hamas students were arrested for trespassing after repeated warnings to vacate the area, only to be released and returned to Columbia.

A rabbi at Columbia's Orthodox Union Jewish Learning Initiative has advised Jewish students to leave campus because the university has shown that it cannot keep them safe.

Columbia revoked the campus access of a Jewish professor who has been critical of school administrators because the university said it couldn't ensure his safety.

Speaker Johnson, Chairwoman Foxx, and Republican members of the New York delegation went to Columbia University last week and, while addressing the campus, were greeted by anti-Israel chants of: ``From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.''

What that calls for actually is the eradication of the Jewish people. We all know that expression is abhorrent in our society and, yet, it is going on, it seems now, hourly on our college campuses.

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. The surge in the ancient bigotry of anti-Semitism over the years, especially since October 7, must not continue. It is long past time that Congress act to protect Jewish Americans from the scourge of anti-Semitism on campuses around our country.

The Antisemitism Awareness Act expresses the sense of Congress that discrimination against Jews may violate title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it is based on race, color, or national origin, which can include discrimination based on actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics.

The bill requires the Department of Education to take into account the 2016 International Holocaust Remembrance Act's definition of anti- Semitism as part of its assessment of whether anti-Semitic discrimination has occurred. The IHRA definition provides a consistent framework for the Department of Education schools, colleges, and universities to apply to police anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment.

The IHRA's definition is widely accepted and a vital tool for identifying and addressing discriminatory conduct that is motivated by anti-Semitism. It has been adopted by at least 31 States. This bill is exactly the type of legislation needed to protect Jewish Americans from harassment and attacks for simply being who they are.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this important bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the gentleman turn on his television and watch what is going on right now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler), the author of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann).

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

Mr. Speaker, you cannot fight anti-Semitism if you cannot define it. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance offers us a clear and widely accepted definition rooted in the tragedy of the ages. After that horrific crime against humanity, the civilized nations of the world took a sacred oath: Never again.

To support that oath, these united nations restored the Jewish state to its historic homelands. That state is now under attack at home and abroad, and with this act, America stands with our Jewish brethren at home and abroad.

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

Mr. Speaker, Ukraine and Israel are in growing danger and running out of arms and ammunition while China casts a hungry eye on Taiwan. History warns us of allowing aggression to grow unchecked and of how quickly events in an unstable world can unravel.

Profligate spending is exhausting our resources and damaging our economy, but as Reagan reminded us, defense is not a budget issue. You spend what you need to spend. Although the defense of these besieged nations is one step removed from our own, it would be a very good thing to keep it that way.

I regret that the three military aid bills are larded up with about $20 billion of economic handouts, but we are out of options, and we are out of time. I am afraid that is the price we now have to pay for months of dithering in this House. Without these bills today, we and the world risk a future butcher's bill that is incalculable.

Mr. Chair, I don't discount the mounting dangers we face from enemies abroad, but we also cannot discount the dangers we face at home from the very powers that this bill would continue.

As has been pointed out, the FBI abused these powers 278,000 times in a single year and turned them against American citizens by phishing for January 6th and Black Lives Matter rioters, probing political donors, and even piercing congressional offices.

John Adams believed that the indiscriminate searches by British officials became the first spark of the American Revolution. Having lived under such a tyranny, the Founders protected us with the Fourth Amendment. Before authorities can search through our records, they have to get a warrant from an independent judge by showing probable cause to suspect that we have committed a crime.

Now, there are many excellent reforms in this bill, and I applaud them, but they largely depend on these agencies policing themselves, and experience warns us that is just not enough. Without a warrant requirement, I fear these powers will, once again, be turned against our fundamental liberties and these days that scares me as much as a terrorist attack.

Just imagine how much safer we would all be if we stationed a soldier in every house, but we have the Third Amendment to protect us against that tyranny, just as we have a Fourth Amendment to protect us against the tyranny of indiscriminate searches.

Benjamin Franklin's warning echoes from his age to ours today: ``Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' Let that not be history's judgment of us.

Mr. Speaker, do we really want to give the President the power to declare foreign adversaries and then require a communications platform within them to be banned or sold to a government-approved owner?

If there are data privacy concerns, we should warn consumers and trust them to make their own decisions. If there are propaganda concerns, we should defend the free and open debate that our First Amendment protects, confident that the best way to judge the truth from lies is to put the two of them side by side and trust the people to know the difference.

The last thing we should do is take that power away from the people and give it to the government.

The answer to authoritarianism is not more authoritarianism.

The answer to CCP-style propaganda is not CCP-style oppression.

Let us slow down before we blunder down this very steep and slippery slope.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution reflects the testimony that the Immigration, Integrity, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee recently received from experts and former ICE officials that the President has full authority in existing law to secure our borders. He simply refuses to do so.

Donald Trump enforced our laws. He used title 42 to stop millions of illegal crossings. He required the asylum claimants to remain in Mexico or other safe third countries until their cases were heard. He enforced court-ordered deportations, and it worked. Illegal immigration fell to a 46-year low.

Now, the laws haven't changed. The President changed. On Biden's first day in office, he ended the remain in Mexico policy. He ordered ICE to stop enforcing border deportations, and he ordered all construction on the border wall to cease. Since that day, this administration has deliberately released more than 4\1/2\ million illegal aliens into our country and allowed an additional 1.8 million to evade apprehension by the Border Patrol while it was overwhelmed.

That is a combined population of illegal immigrants who have entered into this country the size of the State of Missouri, our 18th largest State with eight Congressional Districts.

I repeat: The laws didn't change. The President changed.

Last year, the House passed H.R. 2 to make it harder for future Presidents to flout the law, but Senate Democrats killed it. Instead, they tout a bill that would leave a future President powerless to enforce our immigration laws until illegal crossings reached a minimum of 4,000 per day.

This crisis is exactly what the Democrats promised to unleash, and it is exactly what they have unleashed and defended every day for the last 3 years. The hard truth is that that cannot be fixed by Congress. It can only be fixed by replacing this administration with one that will secure our border, enforce our laws, and protect our people. That can only be done by the American people at the ballot box.