Cliff Bentz

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Korean, Vietnam, and WWII War Veterans from Oregon's Second Congressional District who are visiting their memorials on the WWII Memorial through the efforts of Honor Flight of Oregon. When I have the opportunity to meet these heroes, I am reminded of President Ronald Reagan's words: ``The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave.'' Our veterans embody this spirit, having fought valiantly in Korea, Vietnam, and WWII to preserve the freedoms we hold dear. Their courage and dedication REMIND us that the price of liberty is always worth paying. It is my privilege to include in the Record their names. Veterans on this Honor Flight from Oregon are as follows: George Adams, Valton Albert, Donald Bemis, Michael Donnelly, Charles Hagadone, William Hagadone, Kenneth Hart, Joseph Hironaka, Joseph R. Hironaka, Robert Houk, Neil Hummel, Paul Lofland, Katherine Berg, Matthew Markovic, Kevin Maher, Melvin Mook, Kevin Krieger, Thomas O'Neil, Richard Patten, Robert Penney, James SantaMaria, Michael Shellito, Robert Smith, William Smith, Keith Elzner, Larry Stoke, Steven Strable, Robert Verlezza, Duane Whitehead. These heroes join over 260,000 Veterans who have been honored through the Honor Flight Network of volunteers nationwide since 2005. Mr. Speaker, President Harry S. Truman once stated, ``Our debt to the heroic men and valiant women in the service of our country can never be repaid. They have earned our undying gratitude.'' As a Nation, we must never take for granted the liberties we enjoy today, recognizing that these freedoms have been hard-won by the honor, commitment, and sacrifice of our Veterans. Each Member in this chamber and every citizen in these United States should be humbled by the courage of the brave Veterans who voluntarily faced danger and adversity to preserve our country and way of life. Colleagues, please join me in thanking these Veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Oregon for their remarkable service and devotion to our great country.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Korean, Vietnam, and WWII War Veterans from Oregon's Second Congressional District who are visiting their memorials on the Capitol Plaza through the efforts of Honor Flight of Oregon. When I have the opportunity to meet these heroes, I am reminded of the enduring words of President Ronald Reagan, ``Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.'' Our veterans embody this spirit, having fought valiantly in Korea, Vietnam, and WWII to preserve the freedoms we hold dear. Their courage and dedication remind us that the price of liberty is always worth paying. It is my privilege to include in the Record their names. Veterans on this Honor Flight from Oregon are as follows: Kenneth Amburn, Jack Crockett, Jack Fitzgerald, Ronald Greene, Michael Grover, Roger Heegard, Ronald Hemphill, Gary Hoffman, Freddy Humble, Kevin Johnson, Wayne Kleckner, Richard Little Jr., Kenneth Marvin, Terry Moore, Gerald Newcomb, Terry Peariso, Ray Rose, David Schwab, Colben Keith Sime Jr., Jack war''Smith, Robert Stangier, Gregory Storey, Dale Vincent, Richard Vowell, William Wilde, Curtis Williams, David Young, Steven Eggert, Nathan Greene, Shasta Little, Kevin Pierson, Roy Starbeck, and Israel Wallace, Tyr Symank, Robert Symank. These heroes join over 260,000 Veterans who have been honored through the Honor Flight Network of volunteers nationwide since 2005. Mr. Speaker, General Douglas MacArthur once said, ``The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.'' As a Nation, we must never take for granted the liberties we enjoy today, recognizing that these freedoms have been hard-won by the honor, commitment, and sacrifice of our Veterans. Each Member in this chamber and every citizen in these United States should be humbled by the courage of the brave Veterans who voluntarily faced danger and adversity to preserve our country and way of life. Colleagues, please join me in thanking these Veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Oregon for their remarkable service and devotion to our great country.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. 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 S. 679.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 679, the GAO Database Modernization Act. This is an important piece of legislation that would help Congress, the Government Accountability Office, and the public keep track of the rulemaking activities of the administrative state. Under the Congressional Review Act, administrative agencies are required to notify Congress and the GAO when that agency enacts a new rule. This notification process allows Congress to review and, if necessary, consider a resolution to reject the new rule within a certain period of time. The notification process also allows the GAO to maintain a publicly available database of all rules. This publicly available database allows the American people to access information about the rules and regulations that govern their lives. One downside, however, is that, under current law, agencies, although required to publish new rules, are not required to notify Congress or the GAO if they amend or eliminate a rule. This can lead to significant confusion. If the GAO is not notified of a change to or revocation of a rule, then it is unable to maintain an up-to-date database for the American people. Further, because agencies are not required to notify Congress when a rule is modified or eliminated, many activities undertaken by the administrative state occur without any oversight. As a result, the American people may view out-of-date information when searching for details about regulations, and Congress does not have easy access to all the information required to effectively conduct oversight of the administrative state. S. 679 seeks to remedy this problem. The GAO Database Modernization Act will require administrative agencies to notify the GAO whenever they amend, suspend, or eliminate any rule. This bill would allow the GAO to maintain a comprehensive database, tracking all administrative rulemaking developments, not just newly enacted rules. This commonsense, narrowly tailored, and bipartisan proposal will ensure that the American people have access to complete and correct information about the rules that govern their lives. It will also allow Congress to better monitor the regulatory developments of the administrative state and ensure that Members of Congress are appropriately informed of the regulatory state of play. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 670) to improve services for trafficking victims by establishing, in Homeland Security Investigations, the Investigators Maintain Purposeful Awareness to Combat Trafficking Trauma Program and the Victim Assistance Program.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this necessary bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ

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

Mr. BENTZ. Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit the Department of the Interior from using appropriated funds for any purpose having to do with establishing under the Antiquities Act a national monument in Malheur County, Oregon. Malheur County is part of my congressional district, and it is huge, almost 10,000 square miles in size. As Members can see from the picture to my right, this county is 145 times the size of Washington, D.C. It is sparsely populated, but the people who live and work in Malheur County understand the value and importance of protecting the land because many are second, third, and fourth generations who spent their lives earning a living in the most challenging of arid locations, knowing from hard experience that the only way to survive is to live in harmony with the land. Back in 2015, a small group of mostly urban activists, funded by recreational sportswear companies, tried to convince the Obama administration that it should use the Antiquities Act to abruptly impose a national monument designation on 2.5 million acres of the 6.3 million acres making up Malheur County. That is about 40 percent of the county's entire area. This picture beside me shows the typical type of land that makes up much of these 2.5 million acres. The almost 200 miles of canyon seen cutting through the sagebrush flats in this picture are already protected with scenic river designations. We don't need a monument stacked on top of those previous designations. Much of the proposed monument area is covered by sagebrush and extremely dry. The widely separated springs and ephemeral trickles of water trying to pass as streams in this vast, environmentally fragile area are generally the site of ranch headquarters operated for generations by families of ranchers. These ranchers, in addition to being an important part of the economy, provide first-responder protection for recreationists, hikers, and hunters. When wildfires break out, as they are right now, they do their best to protect the land itself. Their presence also protects against abuse of the land by those who have little regard for its fragility. Back in 2015, when those activists began to lobby the Obama administration for a monument designation, local residents gathered together in opposition. They formed a group of ranchers, hunters, environmental NGOs, and others. For the past 7 years, this group has been meeting, studying, arguing, discussing, and working with landowners, State legislators, county commissioners, the local Paiute Tribe of Indians, Congressmen, Senator Ron Wyden, and others to develop a legislative initiative addressing many of the concerns of interested parties. Their work culminated in S. 1890, the Malheur Community Empowerment for the Owyhee Act, passed by the Senate. Thus, there is no reason for a national monument designation. The pending Senate bill, when finalized, because it needs to be changed in significant part, plus the Federal protections already in place, as shown in the chart beside me, are all designed to protect this important area. A top-down monument designation will not protect the land. In fact, such a designation will attract tens of thousands of people to this fragile area, resulting in the destruction of the very thing a monument designation would purport to protect. It is a sad commentary on those who preach cooperation and nonpartisanship that one of the very environmental NGOs that was at the negotiating table and participated in the structure found in S. 1890 has now begun to advertise, fundraise, and lobby, advocating that the President use the Antiquities Act to designate much of that same 2.5 million acres as a national monument, ignoring the years of work and time invested by those who actually live in and around this land to do something more protective. Madam Chair, my amendment is designed to stop the use of Federal moneys for what would be a totally unnecessary monument designation, thus allowing the locally driven public land protective process to continue. Madam Chair, I ask for support of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ. Madam Chair, I point out that there is layer upon layer of Federal protective designations already in place. More importantly, the local community has worked together for almost 7 years to put together a bill similar to the one that has been passed by the Senate. Why in the world would we want to allow the designation of a monument to usurp the local work done by people living in that area? This amendment keeps that from happening, and we need this kind of protection so that local people recognize they are not powerless and that they can step up and protect their land. Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in defending our communities' rights and upholding our constitutional rights. We must not allow executive overreach but protect our rural communities and promote balanced approaches to Federal land management. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Veterans from Oregon's Second Congressional District who, through the efforts of Honor Flight of Oregon, are visiting their memorials on the National Mall. When I meet these heroes, I am reminded of the enduring words of Douglas MacArthur, who said, ``Duty, honor, country. Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be.'' These words, Mr. Speaker, still ring true today. Those who value liberty are indebted to these heroes, for each one of them defended our freedom through acts of service, sacrifice, and bravery all on behalf of our country. It is my privilege to include in the Record their names. The Veterans on this Honor Flight from Oregon are: William Await, Navy; Berry Roland, Army; Henry Butler, Navy; Roland Cook, Air Force; Julian Cortez, Marine Corps; David Cunningham, Navy; Duane Desautel, Army; Wallace Hunnicutt, Air Force; Daniel Long, Navy; James Martson, Navy; Fredrick Miles, Air Force; Lorin Myers, Marine Corps Reserve; Gerald Nolan, Marine Corps; Douglas Olson, Army; Richard Patten, Navy Reserve; Henry Perry, Navy; James Potter, Marine Corps; Dale Rosenboom, Army; Helen Rosenboom, Army; Hector Sanchez, Army; Sherrell Spears, Army; Craig Spotts, Navy; Gary Svaren, Army; David Wright, Army; Thomas Wright, Army; Ken Wilson, Navy. These heroes join over 240,000 Veterans, who since 2005, have been honored through the nationwide Honor Flight Network of volunteers. Mr. Speaker, in his 1988 Veterans Day address President Ronald Reagan said, ``We remember those who were called upon to give all a person can give, and we remember those who were prepared to make that sacrifice if it were demanded of them in the line of duty, though it never was. Most of all, we remember the devotion and gallantry with which all of them ennobled their nation as they became champions of a noble cause.'' As a Nation, we must never take for granted the liberties we enjoy today, recognizing that these freedoms have been hard-won by the honor, commitment, and sacrifice of our veterans. Each Member in this chamber and citizen in these United States should be humbled by the courage of the brave veterans who voluntarily underwent the dangers necessary to preserve our country. Colleagues, please join me in thanking these Veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Oregon for their remarkable service and devotion to our great country.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I don't think I have encountered such an amazing display of ignorance regarding the nature of a wolf until this afternoon. A wolf is not a pet dog. It is not some schnauzer, golden retriever, or dachshund. It is, truth of the matter, a natural-born killer. That is what it does for a living. That is how it stays alive. It kills things. It eats them. It does not kill them in a kind and humane fashion. It is a wolf. We would be led to believe otherwise by what we have been hearing from the other side of the aisle. It is obvious to me, from those who have suggested, ranchers are apparently not to be concerned about. Having not grown up on a ranch, as did I, they don't have a clue about what it is like to have to get up in the middle of the night to try to go out and protect your livelihood from nocturnal killers like wolves. They don't get it. They don't want to get it. They don't want to understand it because they don't have to. The people I represent do have to deal with wolves back in Oregon. It is some of the most awkward situations. Highway 395 cuts my district basically in half. My district, by the way, Congressional District Two in Oregon, is bigger than the State of Washington. It is bisected by this highway. On one side the wolves are listed, and on the other side they are not. In some places, this highway runs right through the middle of a single-ownership ranch. Hence, you can imagine when the wolf kills an animal on one side where it is protected and runs to the other where it is not or vice versa. That is hardly a situation that benefits folks trying to make a living. To suggest that there is a balance in Yellowstone, you haven't read the most recent report about Yellowstone apparently. You should. There is some argument that the wolf brought some sort of natural balance back to Yellowstone. Not true. Read the report. Mr. Speaker, I have a question: How many wolves is enough? We have about 250, something like that, wolves in Oregon, 25 packs. That has been determined to be adequate for the survival of the wolf. That is enough under the ESA. We have 2,500 to 3,500 in Minnesota. That is a few more than I think is necessary, don't you, Mr. Speaker? We have 60,000 wolves in Canada, and the number is growing because it is almost impossible to slow the growth down. We have 5,000 to 6,000 wolves in Alaska. Mr. Speaker, how many wolves is enough? That is really the question we should be asking, because the Endangered Species Act doesn't require an abundance of these natural-born killers. It requires enough that we still have them around. No one is disputing that. To suggest that 90 percent of the wolves were killed in Idaho, not true. There are over 1,000 wolves still in Idaho to this day. The exact count is difficult. Wolves are smart. They are intelligent creatures. They learn, and it becomes more and more difficult to control them. The reason they need to be delisted is so that we have some means of controlling an apex predator. An apex predator is one of these things that once you have them, they are very hard to control. Being listed makes it almost impossible. It is odd when we have language in the report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that states unequivocally--I will read you page 15 of the report dated February 1 of 2024: ``Specifically now and into the foreseeable future, wolves are likely to retain a healthy level of abundance. Given the assumptions in our model, our analysis of our model projections indicates that there is no risk of quasi-extinction in the next 100 years under any of our future scenarios.'' This is U.S. Fish and Wildlife talking: ``More specifically, according to the population protections for the forecasting model, which incorporates Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming's minimum management commitments since delisting, we project there would be at least 739 wolves throughout Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming for the next 100 years.'' Mr. Speaker, of course we need the delisting. It is the way that we are going to be able to protect, if at all, and control the number of wolves that now inhabit the United States.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chair Westerman for giving me the opportunity to speak in favor of this important bill. This bill would reverse a rule that essentially destroys multiple use of Federal lands. However, to put this in perspective, we should call out how much land we are actually talking about. Looking at the Bureau of Land Management's web page, the Bureau of Land Management administers more surface land, 245 million acres, or one-tenth of America's land base, and more subsurface mineral States, 700 million acres, than any other agency in the United States. The BLM's mission, which is principally defined by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, FLPMA, directs the agency to carry out a dual mandate, that of managing public land for multiple uses while conserving national, historical, and cultural resources. Mr. Speaker, this is incredibly important because what the rule does is to prioritize conservation. Contrary to what we have heard repeatedly from the other side of the aisle, there is a prioritization. Let me read from the rule itself, page 19583 of the Federal Register, which says: ``The Bureau of Land Management proposes new regulations that, pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, and other relevant authorities, would advance the BLM's mission to manage the public lands for multiple use and sustained yield `by prioritizing the health and resilience of ecosystems across those lands.''' Now, one could argue, I suppose, that means it just brings it level, but I would suggest it makes it much more important than the other uses. It certainly could be read that way. The proposed rule provides that the BLM will protect intact landscapes--will protect, doesn't say might--restore degraded habitat, and make wise management decisions based on science and data. To support these activities, the proposed rule would apply land health standards to all BLM-managed lands and uses and clarify that conservation is a ``use''. Well, what they are trying to do is say it is no higher on the scale than any of the other uses, but in point of fact, in the same paragraph, they suggest and, I think, direct otherwise. It astounds me that my colleagues from across the aisle--actually, I wrote down shocks. I think it is a better word--that they would want to increase our reliance on China for rare earth minerals, which this bill would do by making it possible to stop mining, to continue to turn a blind eye to the children and others laboring in slave labor conditions in Congo, to continue to export our needs for rare earth minerals to other countries where damage to the environment is extraordinarily greater than would be the case here in America. Why we persist in trying to export these horrific activities and try to pretend they are not happening is beyond me. This rule that our bill would reverse gives us an opportunity to perhaps, at least start doing our part of shoring up the minerals necessary for all of the so-called green bad deal. I think it is referred to as the Green New Deal on the other side of the aisle or the green deal. The point is that this bill would make it that much more difficult to obtain the minerals necessary in this country. This is truly overreach by the BLM and something that needs to be reversed. To suggest that this has not been prioritized is incorrect at several levels, one of which I already called out. The other, you can go to page 19588 of the Register, and it calls out what conservation means. It says: ``Within the framework of the proposed rule, `protection' and `restoration' together constitute conservation.'' Protection and restoration. Those words sound so great, but what it amounts to is a barrier to our entry upon some of those millions upon millions of acres of public land--another barrier, as if we didn't have enough.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Madam Speaker, it has been said that Secretary Mayorkas is dishonest, duplicitous, and derelict in his duties, and I agree. However, he has also willfully refused to comply with and enforce our Nation's immigration laws and explicitly instructed his employees to not enforce these laws. Additionally, the Secretary has willfully obstructed inquiries of the Judiciary Committee regarding entry of illegal aliens into our country. The constitutional standard for impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas has been satisfied. I commend Chair Mark Green for his excellent work in managing this important constitutional matter, and in following regular order while doing so.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman LaMalfa for allowing me time to address this important issue. The destruction of the Klamath Dam is a classic case of misdiagnosing the problem and then applying the wrong remedy. Destroying the dams on the Klamath will not save the salmon. Returning more river habitat to its natural state will not save the salmon. Stealing all the water from farmers and ranchers and putting it in streams will not save the salmon. Why not? Because the main problem facing salmon is not the dams. The main problems facing the salmon are the conditions salmon face in the ocean. There may be, someday, a modest benefit to these fish after the dams have been removed, and when millions upon millions of tax dollars are spent on habitat recovery, but these misplaced efforts will not bring fish runs back. Whatever the modest improvement might be, it will not be worth the loss of the clean electrical power that has been created by these dams. Certainly, the few additional fish that return will not justify increased flows of water taken from farmers. Why? Because, again, habitat is not the issue. There are hundreds of miles of unused habitat, and the volume of water is not the issue. For the past 20 years, the water flows, using water taken from farmers, exceeded what would have been available in the Klamath River under natural conditions. Despite this additional water, these fish have not recovered. Again, the problems facing the fish that need to be solved are those found in the ocean. If further evidence of this is needed, look at what has happened on the Elwha River in Washington State. Two dams were removed over 10 years ago, and there has still been no increase in fish. Who is it really that bears the brunt of the damage occurring as a result of the destruction of these four dams? Who is it that actually suffers? First and foremost, the fish. They are the real losers in this entirely misdirected exercise. The National Marine Fisheries Service is being derelict in its duty to study and then protect salmon against the challenges they face in the sea. Secondly, the farmers of the Klamath Basin. These people are truly bearing the costs of shutting down and now removing these dams. First came the loss of the low-cost electrical power generated by the four dams that made possible movement of massive volumes of irrigation and bird refuge water across the Klamath Basin. Then came the taking of farmers' water to flush fish down the river to the sea, and now the stealing of even more of the farmers' water to clean up, by flushing to the ocean, a huge portion of the 20 million cubic yards of silt and mud left from destruction of the dams. It is the total loss of the value of the farmers' land, much of it being farmed by third- and fourth-generation family members, that is the real and unforgivable travesty. This inequitable and unjust consequence of the imposition of the ESA, the Endangered Species Act, must be and will be addressed in the Subcommittee on Natural Resources. The third problem we face is the millions of costs in dollars by the electrical ratepayers of Oregon and California and the Nation. Remember, the dams are private property. There is a tax adjustment somewhere on the books of PacifiCorp that I am guessing is in the numerous millions. Finally, the millions upon millions of wildfowl that once used the Klamath refuges as an important part of the Pacific flyway can't. We will not have the thousands of acres of water that once upon a time supplied these birds with clean water delivered by dam-driven electrical pumps. There are many more victims of removal, but time does not permit further discussion. Sadly, the one predictable thing that is going to emerge from this billion-dollar exercise in self-destruction will be the ultimate conclusion that the salmons' most challenging existential issues are ocean trawler and predation based. These obvious and inconvenient facts will not be accepted until every drop of water has been wrung out of every farm and ranch in the Klamath, taking with it the livelihoods of farmers and ranchers and cities in the upper reaches of that basin. The spotted owl debacle was the last time this many thousands of people and businesses were sacrificed up on the altar of flawed science. The last time the ESA ruined this many people's lives, it was loggers and their communities. This time it is the ranchers and farmers, who, according to courts, bureaucrats, and environmentalists, are expendable. I assure you they are not.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, this morning the House Committee on Homeland Security passed two Articles of Impeachment accusing Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of high crimes and misdemeanors. I have thought, and with the information developed by the committee, have come to believe that Secretary Mayorkas should be impeached for his clear violation of the law, and when this matter comes to the floor, I intend to vote in favor of his impeachment. That said, today I wish to remark upon the importance and merit, when it comes to most things, and certainly impeachment, of the value of carefully following proper process. Impeachment is a constitutional function of the highest order, and when considering its use, we must transcend passions and politics. If impeachment is to remain what the Founders intended, and that is something greater than a political tool deployed whenever the mood suits, then it must be used as originally designed: as a means of holding people who have political power accountable when they violate the high crimes and misdemeanors standard. If we fail to follow best practices in this effort, then impeachment will soon become little more than a sad and ineffective means of expressing dissatisfaction with the policies of the opposing party. It has correctly been said that the object of the House in an impeachment proceeding is to create a full record upon which a verdict in the Senate can be fairly and efficiently adjudged. Thanks to Chairman Mark Green's excellent work, this is exactly what has happened. Over the past 10 months, including important recent evidentiary hearings, Chairman Mark Green's Homeland Security Committee, using an open and deliberative process, has carefully created a full record reflecting Secretary Mayorkas' violation of statutory and constitutional standards upon which the Senate can and should deliberate. That process has not only developed the facts and evidence of breaches of our laws, it has also allowed full debate and full disclosure to our Nation of what our law requires and the Secretary's intentional circumvention of those laws. Had we not completed this investigative process, we would have not only weakened the impeachment remedy, but we would have also made it much easier for the Senate to ignore the excellent work the committee has now done. Just a few words about Article I of the Homeland Security Committee's impeachment resolution: United States Code 8 U.S.C. 1226(c) explicitly states that illegal aliens who have a criminal conviction shall be detained. Yet Secretary Mayorkas literally ordered DHS employees to not enforce this law. This is not mere neglect, nor can this violation be excused as a result of not having space available in the detention facilities. There were and are spaces available, and if there were not, the Secretary could and should have asked for increased funding in the DHS budget. In fact, when Secretary Mayorkas appeared before the Judiciary Committee, on which I sit, I asked why he had not requested more money for his department's budget instead of less. Because we Republicans followed regular order and completed the hearing process, we have met and exceeded the threshold of evidence necessary to justify a trial. The record established by Chairman Mark Green's Homeland Security Committee contains adequate evidence of the Secretary's breach of our laws, and this constitutes more than an adequate foundation for his impeachment. Thus, when the Senate receives this impeachment resolution, it will have the evidence needed to render a fair and efficient verdict, and that verdict should be that the Secretary is guilty of breaking our Nation's laws and should be convicted and removed from office.

Mr. BENTZ

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 980, I call up the bill (H.R. 6678) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that aliens who have been convicted of or who have committed Social Security fraud are inadmissible and deportable, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BENTZ. 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. 6678.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6678 makes aliens inadmissible to and removed from the United States for committing Social Security fraud and identification document fraud. The numbers are staggering. In 2017, before the Democrats opened our borders and produced the largest illegal mass migration in recorded history, there were 1.2 million cases in which illegal aliens used Social Security numbers that either belonged to someone else or were simply fabricated. A 2020 GAO report on employment-related identity fraud identified more than 2.9 million Social Security numbers with risk characteristics associated with Social Security number misuse. Last year, an investigative report published by RealClearInvestigations said this: ``Reports dating back over a decade show that hundreds of thousands of Americans are unknowingly `sharing' their Social Security numbers with illegal immigrants. ``Such victims may face tax bills for income they didn't earn or depleted benefits. Worse, some may experience the burden of bad credit histories and criminal records inaccurately attributed to themselves after being issued Social Security numbers that illegal aliens had previously invented and used. ``The overall impact on American citizens is largely unknown because Federal, State, and local governments as well as financial institutions have generally failed to notify them even when fraud is suspected.'' The Trump administration documented the extent of fraud during which time it notified 1.6 million employers of employees whose Social Security numbers didn't match government records. The Biden administration then took over and has since brought 5 million illegal aliens into the United States. They stopped the practice of notifying employers of fraudulent use of Social Security numbers. No doubt it was just too embarrassing. This has been going on for years, but it is sure to have grown exponentially during the Biden administration. We don't know because the administration doesn't want us to know. The current process for holding illegal aliens accountable for ID fraud is bureaucratized to the point of absurdity. In one case, for example, an illegal alien trafficking in phony identification documents was placed in removal proceedings in 2005, and then nothing happened until 2013 when the endless appeals process finally concluded. Despite the harm of Social Security fraud and the increasing number of illegal aliens committing it, there is no guarantee that an illegal alien committing it can be declared inadmissible to or removed from the United States. In fact, in at least the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and potentially the Fourth Circuit and 10th Circuit, certain Social Security fraud offenses do not carry immigration consequences. This bill changes that arduous, counterintuitive, and lengthy process by streamlining the analysis and ensuring that criminal aliens can be held to account and quickly removed from the country for victimizing Americans through Social Security and identification document fraud. In doing so, the Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act protects Americans and strengthens the immigration system. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Democrats today seem to be more concerned with the due process rights of illegal aliens than with the fact that those illegal aliens may be victimizing hardworking Americans. However, the Democrats' concerns are invalid. For 80 years, the Board of Immigration Appeals has provided additional protections for aliens whose removability or inadmissibility is based on an admission. Under BIA precedent, to be considered an admission, an alien's admission must be explicit, unequivocal, and unqualified. The Department of Homeland Security then bears the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the statement meets that requirement for removability purposes. Even then, the immigration judge would have to find that the admission fits within the relevant statutes and that the admission is based on reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence. The statutes cited in this bill have clear elements and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. It should not be so difficult to remove aliens who commit Social Security fraud or identification document fraud. Democrats' fearmongering contradicts the law, contravenes the text of the bill, and undermines efforts to ensure that illegal alien fraudsters can be removed from the United States. H.R. 6678 simplifies the process for ensuring foreign nationals who defraud Americans while guests in our country can be removed from the United States. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentlewoman from Washington suggests that we have not, as Republicans, focused on a real solution, and I would draw her attention to H.R. 2. Any one of the solutions that people come up with is going to be dependent upon our having secured the border first, and for anyone to suggest otherwise is simply incorrect. The solutions that are contained in that bill I hope will make their way this direction from the Senate, but I doubt it. I am looking forward to seeing whatever comes from that direction. H.R. 2 is a good approach to try to resolve what I will call as the initial issue that must be addressed. The Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act requires that aliens be convicted of fraud or admit to such fraud. Contrary to the Democrats' talking points, not every ground for inadmissibility and removability in the Immigration and Nationality Act requires conviction. In fact, the language here is identical to the grounds of inadmissibility for crimes involving moral turpitude and controlled substances offenses under INA 212(a)(2). Even for grounds of removability, convictions are not always required. For example, an alien can be removed for overstaying their visa, violating their nonimmigration status, or condition of entry, smuggling aliens, committing marriage fraud, being a drug user or drug addict, falsely claiming U.S. citizenship, or engaging in espionage. By requiring at least an admission, this bill conforms to the pattern of other grounds of inadmissibility and removability. In a world of unsafe streets and far-left prosecutors who may never prosecute these offenses or will allow aliens to plead down to crimes that may not make them deportable, it makes no sense to strike the provision to require a conviction. If an alien has admitted to such conduct, why can't the alien's own admission be used to show the alien is inadmissible or deportable? Democrats want to take illegal aliens at their word when they cross the border, even thought they destroy their passports and IDs, yet Democrats don't want to take aliens at their word when they admit to committing a crime in the United States. This defies common sense. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to return to my remark earlier and say, look, if we want to address issues such as E-Verify and challenges that small employers face, the first thing we have to do is secure the border, and the way we do that is with H.R. 2. The fact that the Democrats are, for whatever reason, ignoring the solutions to securing the border is beyond me because in order for us to move into these other areas to protect our farmers, our ranchers, and others, we have to secure the border first. That is a challenge, I think, to those who want the border to be open. That is incredibly unfortunate because a huge portion of folks certainly in my district and in the United States realize that if we don't secure the border, all of this discussion about good and bad is moot. We have to secure the border first, and H.R. 2 does that. Democrats claim this bill is unnecessary because aliens with fraud convictions are already inadmissible or removable. That couldn't be further from the truth. Although aliens who committed some forms of fraud may be found inadmissible to or removable from the United States, many cannot be. In fact, in numerous Federal courts of appeal, certain Social Security fraud offenses do not carry immigration consequences. Take this Ninth Circuit case, for instance: For 19 years, an illegal alien used another woman's Social Security number to obtain employment, get married twice, and obtain a driver's license, credit cards, and a HUD loan. When the other woman learned of this fraud, she asked the illegal alien to stop using her identity. The illegal alien refused. Yet, the Ninth Circuit, doing legal gymnastics, determined that the illegal alien's fraud conviction did not carry certain immigration consequences because it was not a crime involving moral turpitude. Even when courts get it right, it often takes them years to do so. In a Fifth Circuit case from 2021, the alien already had been in removal proceedings for 6 years before the Federal appeals court finally found that his conviction did, in fact, make him inadmissible to the United States. That is why H.R. 6678 is imperative to protect our communities from fraud and ensure aliens who engage in fraud can be more quickly removed from the United States. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Democrats want to leave the border open and then facilitate the illegal presence of those in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, contrary to the Democrats' talking points, this bill is necessary not only to protect Americans from fraud but also to hold aliens accountable for their criminal acts. This bill makes America safer. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.