Andy Biggs

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill actually would help save money by holding monitors responsible, making sure that they are responsible. That is important. When they start talking about $1 billion, remember that just compliance costs and the cost of this particular monitor that they are very focused on has cost the taxpayers there over $350 million, over one-third of a billion dollars. The monitor in Baltimore right now submitted their bill recently for $1.5 million. That is just a fee, mind you, Mr. Speaker, of the monitor, $1.5 million. That doesn't include whatever compliance costs there may be. The second principle that came out of Attorney General Merrick Garland's position was this: When consent decrees involve State and local entities, monitors hold the position of public trust, not only as agents of the court, but as drivers of significant change of public institutions that are central to the communities that they serve, and, thus, they must be structured to ensure that monitors are accountable-- are accountable--for their work. That is what my bill does. It creates accountability because there is no accountability there. If it was all resting in the judge, Merrick Garland could have just said: We will just leave it up to the judge, because that is what the Democrats want. However, they say you must have an opportunity for public input. This is interesting: Consent decrees should include term limits for monitors that could be renewed, but they should have term limits. Those term limits need to be reviewed after 2 to 3 years to determine whether they are performing properly, are cost-effective, and are providing technical assistance. That is what the memo said, and we are trying to get that codified. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman was just arguing essentially for monitors, which continues to hamstring police agencies around the country. I guess he wasn't here when I started reading off how agencies around the country support this bill because they are impacted negatively by rogue monitors. I will just go back to my colleague saying, hey, we didn't--nobody came. Nobody went to Phoenix because we thought this was an unserious endeavor. They could have come. They could have tried to make it serious by bringing their witness, the witness he said he would like to have come in now. He could have brought that witness in then. He chose not to. I think maybe the unseriousness is on your side not taking this issue serious because it does impact the entire country. We know it does. Because why? Because former Attorney General Merrick Garland said: Hey, I am so concerned about it, I am going to commission somebody to spend several months to research this and give us some recommendations. My bill is attempting to implement those recommendations, and I encourage their support of it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Merrick Garland's memo says this: ``Principle: Monitorships should be designed to minimize the cost to jurisdictions''--the one in Maricopa County is $350 million; the one in Oakland is who knows how many millions of dollars--``and to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.'' It goes on to be a little bit more specific: ``Monitorships must nonetheless be designed and administered with awareness that every dollar spent on a monitorship is a dollar that cannot be spent on other policy priorities.'' In other words, don't divert the taxpayers' money so they can't fulfill all of their responsibilities. Here is another quote: ``Monitorships should be designed to avoid even the appearance that a monitor is primarily motivated by profit.'' We have a monitor in Maricopa County, for instance, who gets $3 million a year on average over the term of his monitorship and who seems to be moving the goalposts, just like he did in Oakland. These seem to be saying: Hey, maybe he does have a profit motivation. Specifically, this is what they recommend: Cap the monitor fees, an annual cap on monitor fees; encourage use of pro bono time, reduced rates, and nonprofits; explore alternative fee arrangements; and restrict lead monitor participation in multiple monitorships. We have tried to get at all those things in the current bill. They go on to say this: ``Future consent decrees should limit the ability of the individual who serves as the lead monitor to serve on more than one monitoring team at a time. . . . But the person serving as the lead monitor should be solely committed to the jurisdiction they are serving and should not be simultaneously supporting multiple monitorships at the same time.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with us. That is why we had a field hearing. That is why Democrats were extended the invitation to come; give us the name of someone you want to testify. Do you know how many people across the aisle came to that hearing? Zero, zip, nada came. Democrats didn't come. They were uninterested. They didn't want to hear from Merrick Garland. They didn't want to come. So the Democrats said, oh, well, okay, we are not going to do that. And then they are going to stand up and say some rather wild things about that this only applies to Maricopa County and that the monitorship ends at the end of 5 years. That is not true. That is not what this bill does. The bill says the monitor, the current monitor, is done after 5 years. And why is that? It is because regardless, not just this monitor but how about the monitor that has been in Oakland, California, for 20- some-odd years or other monitors around the country? What happens is, as Merrick Garland said, and as Associate Attorney General Gupta said, they build up incentives. All of a sudden, they had incentives because it is a monetary incentive, and they need to avoid the conflict of interest. That was the first principle--that was within the first principle that Merrick Garland put together, avoid the conflict of interest. Guess what. If the Court were to say we are going to continue the monitorship, you get a new monitor. And, quite frankly, the AG also said these things should be simple. These things should be simple. They should be focused. I don't think that someone who is capable of becoming a court monitor is not going to be able to get up to speed pretty doggone quickly. That is the argument that they are making over there. Let's see who supports this: The National Association of Police, Arizona Sheriffs' Association, Major County Sheriffs of America, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, and also the California police associations. They all support this because all their departments have been taken over. How about this one? I think this is a kick in the pants. They basically roll the monitor. This is the fourth sheriff. The DOJ has said they are in substantial compliance, and guess what, this monitor has taken to micromanaging even the uniforms, the stripes for officers. Oh, no, you can't put them up here. You want them down on the front part of the sleeve. That is what the Maricopa County monitor has done. That is not unique to Maricopa County. The monitors get in, and they micromanage even the most absurd things that have nothing to do with the issue that brought this forward, which was this: the racial profiling in traffic stops. The monitor himself has said in his reports they are in substantial compliance. There is no statistical significance in any difference between any racial demographic in Arizona. The monitorship has a monetary incentive, and that is what you are seeing. That is why you see these monitorships run amuck around the country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8365 is the result of a field hearing that the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance held in February in Phoenix, Arizona. While that hearing focused on the special monitor in Maricopa County, it has implications for residents across the Nation who also find their law enforcement agencies held hostage by a special monitor or consent decree. Since December 2013, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, MCSO, has been under a Federal judicial oversight following a DOJ intervention into the 2008 case of Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio. In 2007, Latino motorists and passengers, aided by the ACLU, filed a lawsuit against then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The lawsuit alleged that MCSO violated the Fourth and 14th Amendments by engaging in a systematic practice of unconstitutional racial profiling, including stopping, detaining, and arresting Latino individuals during traffic stops and patrol operations based on race or perceived immigration status. Following a bench trial in December 2011, U.S. District Judge Murray Snow ruled in 2013 that MCSO had violated constitutional protections and imposed permanent injunctions that required MCSO to implement sweeping reforms to policies, training, operations, and internal investigations. Unlike a consent decree, which is a negotiated settlement agreed to by the parties, the court imposed these injunctions after findings of liability. DOJ consent decrees are typically entered into voluntarily by State or local governments to resolve a civil rights investigation without a trial, even though they can result in similarly extensive Federal oversight and court-appointed monitoring. In January 2014, Judge Snow appointed Federal court monitor Robert Warshaw to oversee MCSO's compliance with the court's permanent injunctions, including reforms intended to address racial discrimination during traffic stops and deficiencies in policy development and oversight. Following that, in July 2015, the court mandated additional remedial measures, including further policy revisions to further strengthen oversight mechanisms. The Federal court monitoring was intended to last only until MCSO achieved full and effective compliance with the court's injunctions, yet oversight has continued for more than a decade without a fixed end date. This extended judicial supervision has placed significant financial burdens on Maricopa County taxpayers, with costs reportedly reaching nearly $350 million. Most of these expenses include the administrative efforts needed to demonstrate compliance with court orders. For example, despite remote work and meetings in 2021, the county was responsible for funding a 3,200-square-foot office suite for the monitor, which cost taxpayers $97,000 for a year. This persistent Federal judicial intervention has created operational challenges for MCSO, including difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified deputies. All of these things, by the way, are consistent with monitoring that is going on in most of the country. The increased administrative workload and ongoing scrutiny have led to a decline in staff retention and discouraged potential recruits from pursuing careers within the department, which is ultimately impacting the office's ability to serve and protect the community, one of the largest counties in the country, with over 5\1/2\ million people. The Federal court monitor typically issues quarterly reports tracking MCSO's compliance with the court-ordered reforms and provides the court with independent assessments of policy implementation. Over the course of more than 40 reports, MCSO's compliance rate increased from below 30 percent in 2014 to over 94 percent by 2025, which meets the standard that requires the agency to demonstrate adherence in more than 94 percent of instances under review. According to Warshaw, the MCSO's compliance framework has become self-sustaining and institutionalized. Warshaw also labeled the MCSO's compliance with policies, training, and supervisory review as solid, noting that the compliance measures were fully built into the agency's daily work, showing full, independent accountability. Earlier this year, the Department of Justice, which originally intervened in this case in 2011, filed a brief supporting Maricopa County's request to end Federal oversight, noting that the litigation has been successful in reforming the agency. By the way, we are on the fourth elected sheriff since this original complaint was filed. The Department argued that the extensive reforms imposed through the court-appointed monitoring regime have been successful in correcting the unconstitutional practices identified in the original case, which you will recall was the racial profiling of Latino motorists. DOJ cited multiple recent monitor reports, which document consistently high compliance rates, institutionalized policy adherence, effective training programs, and durable accountability mechanisms. The Department indicated that continued Federal supervision is no longer necessary to ensure constitutional policing, supporting termination of the court-appointed monitoring regime. Maricopa County is not the only jurisdiction monitored by Robert Warshaw and his associates. Warshaw has been accused of taking exorbitant payments without producing results in monitoring law enforcement agencies in New York, California, Michigan, and Louisiana. For example, Warshaw faced criticism for the duration, high cost, and evolving compliance benchmarks. In other words, he was moving the goalpost of Federal oversight in Oakland, California. Despite reportedly spending little time in Oakland, Warshaw is currently paid more than $1 million annually by the city, a structure that incentivizes prolonging the monitorship, just like we see in Maricopa County. Compared to monitors who operate under narrowly defined mandates and fixed timelines, Warshaw's role continuously blurs the line between oversight and management. Questions about judgment incentives also follow Warshaw from Niagara Falls, New York, for example. Together, episodes in New York and various jurisdictions that have had Warshaw, the critics have cited this systemic pattern in which Warshaw's work unfolds with limited transparency. In fact, when he bills Maricopa County, he won't tell them what he did, and the court won't make him. There were minimal cost controls and little external checks on the expansion or duration of his authority. While I agreed with very little that former AG Merrick Garland did while in office, he actually had pretty good ideas on how to deal with these issues involving monitors. In April 2021, he asked then-Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta to conduct a 4-month review of how the Justice Department appoints and oversees Federal monitors in settlement agreements and consent decrees. In August 2021, Associate AG Gupta responded with 19 recommendations stemming from five core principles. The principles included minimizing costs and conflicts of interest, ensuring monitors' accountability, compliance assessment, community engagement, and efficient reform. A notable reform included in the memorandum was imposing term limits for Federal monitors. The significance of these recommendations sets clear expectations for time-limited oversight, ensuring that Federal monitorships are not indefinite. Mr. Speaker, I want everyone to realize that this applies to monitorships not just in Maricopa County; not just in Niagara Falls, New York; not just in Oakland, California; or in Baltimore, Maryland, where Warshaw was a monitor, or anyplace involving Warshaw. It was so spread out, and the concern was so great, that former Attorney General Merrick Garland asked for the study because even he understood that the monitorships had been abused. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. 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. 8365.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1275, I call up the bill (H.R. 8365) to provide for conditions on the appointment of monitors by courts, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, that is a perfect example of what happens when the Democrats cannot answer for their policies that have wrecked cities and demeaned police officers. They have to be rude and interrupt. They can't sit silent because they know that they are profoundly responsible for the results of their policies. I want them to explain to every officer watching right now, explain to their families, and explain to their spouses who lost a partner and the parentless children and tell them why basic appreciation for the people who risk their lives is somehow too much to ask. Tell them why they don't deserve respect. Tell them why they don't deserve support. After everything, after your defund movement, you cheered. After the sanctuary policies you defended and you continue to defend, after the crime waves your ideology unleashed, and after watching this country bleed for years under your failed experiments of policies, you can't bring yourself to say a simple thank you. Enough. The American people are done with your excuses. They are done watching you demonize the only people standing between them and anarchy. We support our police. We will back the blue, and we will pass this resolution to send one unmistakable message: In America, law enforcement officers have friends, they have allies, and they have the unwavering gratitude of a grateful nation. Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to vote to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We heard a lot about pardons. It is not mentioned at all in this resolution. But it is real fun, you know, when you think about pardons, and I have got article after article here. There is a whole stack of them right here of the more than 3,000 people that President Biden pardoned, some massive fraudsters who never paid their restitution. Odd, isn't it? Quite frankly, Joe Biden was going on a pardon-issuing spree to such an extent he even pardoned a few Members of Congress. How about that. That is pretty interesting to me. Let's see. If you didn't know what was in this resolution, as most Americans don't and anybody watching, you would think this is all about how heinous of an individual Donald J. Trump, our President, is. You saw that TDS on display. But I am going to do a favor for everybody. I am going to go over the 11 clauses in this resolution that honor police officers. By the way, Democrats couldn't even get a unanimous vote when the resolution we just voted on listed fallen officers. They think we are creating partisanship with this. That is not the case. Facts are stubborn things. They don't want to honor police. They were the party of defund the police. Let's take a look at the clauses. Number one: ``Whereas the brave men and women in law enforcement work tirelessly and relentlessly to safeguard the communities they are sworn to protect, serving as the backbone of public safety across our Nation.'' What do my colleagues on the other side find controversial here? What is it? Do they deny that officers work tirelessly? Do they deny that communities depend on them? Because if you can't even affirm this, your problem isn't with the resolution. It is with reality. Number two: ``Whereas law enforcement officers bear the critical responsibility of upholding the rule of law and maintaining the safety, stability, and public order upon which our communities depend.'' What offends them, the rule of law part or the idea that safety and stability actually matter? They never touched on this. Number three: ``Whereas law enforcement officers routinely and selflessly risk their own lives and safety to combat crime, remove dangerous and lethal drugs from our streets, and stand in defense of the most vulnerable among us.'' What is their objection? What is their objection? Do they think law enforcement don't risk their lives, that drugs aren't lethal or that the vulnerable don't deserve that shield? They should tell the widows and orphans of fallen officers why this fact bothers them. Number four: ``Whereas law enforcement officers strengthen our communities through outreach, mentorship, crisis response, and countless daily acts of service that frequently go unrecognized.'' Which of these acts of service do they reject? The mentorship? The crisis intervention? Number five: ``Whereas from resolving neighborhood disputes to checking in on elderly residents and guiding youth programs, officers provide a quiet and steady presence that extends far beyond traditional law enforcement duties.'' Is it the neighborhood dispute resolution that you oppose or the very idea of a steady, positive police presence? What is it that you oppose? Number six: ``Whereas rhetoric and policies from leftist activists and progressive politicians seek to defund or dismantle local police departments, undermine public safety, and place both officers and the communities they serve at greater risk.'' I thought this was your goal. For years many of you and your allies championed it in the streets. You posted on official social media accounts. You introduced legislation and redirected budgets away from law enforcement. The defund the police movement wasn't some fever dream. It was your rallying cry. Do you deny now that that rhetoric ever existed? Do you deny that progressive politicians and leftist activists aggressively pushed these policies in cities across the country? Do you deny the explosion in violent crime? You can't spend years trying to kneecap, starve, and demonize the police and then act outraged when a resolution dares to call it what it was: a dangerous failure that hurt people. Number seven: ``Whereas sanctuary city policies that restrict cooperation with Federal immigration authorities can compel local law enforcement agencies to divert already limited resources and actively encourage resentment toward local law enforcement.'' Again, I thought this was your goal. We have heard it loud and clear from dozens of your own politicians from Minnesota to Boston, California and beyond, people proudly declaring they will not cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement. They will shield the illegal aliens, even the worst of the worst: murderers, rapists, and gang members. They will keep them out on the streets rather than let ICE do its job. Do they deny these sanctuary policies exist and deliberately restrict cooperation with Federal authorities? Almost one-third of Americans live in sanctuary jurisdictions. You can't champion policies that protect criminals over cops and then act shocked when the resolution says sanctuary policies sabotage law enforcement at every level. ``Whereas the Trump administration's focus on restoring law and order has contributed to a notable decline in homicide rates, with levels reaching among the lowest recorded in over a century.'' Data is data, and facts are facts. A report by the Council on Criminal Justice says this: Homicides in 35 major cities declined by 21 percent from 2024 to 2025. Just in Washington, D.C., President Trump is protecting our citizens from failed progressive governance. We have seen incredible drops in violence. Homicides are down 52 percent. Sex abuse is down 48 percent, robbery is down 23 percent, and vehicle theft is down 56 percent. All crime overall is down 25 percent, and Washington, D.C., is on pace for roughly 42 murders this year, the lowest rates since at least 1930. Compare that to the 274 murders in 2023. Number nine: ``Whereas drug overdose deaths in the United States have declined significantly, reaching their lowest levels since 2019.'' Which part of that is fake news to you? The decline? The significance? Or is it the timing as enforcement and border focus tighten? Under Biden administration's catastrophic open-border policies, fentanyl poured across the southern border like never before, over 100,000 deaths, killing tens of thousands. That wasn't an accident. It was a predictable deadly result in prioritizing illegal immigration over American lives. Now with the Trump administration's renewed focus on securing the border, cracking down on traffickers and backing law enforcement, the body count is falling. Lives are being saved. We are reversing that damage. They should own their failure or at least get out of the way while we clean it up. Number 11: ``Whereas law enforcement officers deserve our deepest respect, unwavering support, and profound gratitude.'' Let me ask my friends on the other side of the aisle: If you vote against this resolution, are you voting against gratitude for these men and women who deserve our grateful attitudes and thankfulness? Explain it. Mr. Speaker, he is out of order. He knows he is getting whipped, and that is why he is out of order.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. Is the gentleman prepared to close?

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I said last time I was prepared to close. I assumed that was his closing.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, it is interesting to think back on 2020 as being the measuring line that you are coming from because, when you remember, that is the year of George Floyd. That is the year of CHAZ, CHOP, and rioting, wholesale violence, the Portland courthouse under siege, and the defund police movement, even by some across the aisle in Congress. What has happened since President Trump has come in? Violent crime rates have declined significantly in major cities across the United States. That is what this resolution says at one point. Let's get here. Do they deny the drop? No, they don't deny the drop. They just don't like the fact that Donald Trump gets some credit for it. The TDS has been on display. The numbers are clear. Why does falling crime under renewed law and order priorities threaten the worldview of Democrats? It shouldn't. In Chicago, for instance, in 2025, homicides plunged 29 percent after Donald Trump was elected, from 587 in 2024 to 417 last year. In Columbus, Ohio, in the same period, rapes dropped 39 percent, from 1,116 down to 678. In Houston, ag assaults fell 17 percent, from 18,590 to 15,378. Robberies in L.A. dropped 15.3 percent, from 8,593 to 7,278. New York City recorded the fewest shooting victims and shooting incidents in its entire recorded history in 2025. Democrats spent years telling us that backing the police, enforcing laws, and rejecting soft-on-crime nonsense wouldn't work, that it was racist, outdated, or somehow made things worse. Yet, the American people can see the results with their own eyes--safer streets, fewer victims. That is what is specifically stated in this resolution. What don't they like about it? It mentions Donald J. Trump. It is that simple. They should be coming along with us. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, you know, when I hear the term ``national consensus,'' what seems to be national consensus is that the Democrats were the ones that promoted defund the police. I have here a list of cities who cut a total of $1.71 billion to promote police. They did that because they wanted to defund the police. I hear that there is a consensus bill. The Democrats couldn't even get a unanimous vote on the bill we just voted on just an hour or so ago. I mean, it is just hokum. It is just flat out hokum. Well, the national consensus is that Democrats are well-known to have supported the defund the police movement. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we owe a great deal of gratitude to the men and women in law enforcement who make sacrifices every day. They miss dinners, holidays, parent-teacher conferences, sports games, performances, and celebrations with their families so that the rest of us can live safely. These brave officers are the thin blue line that stand between our communities and chaos. For years, radical Democrats championed the defund the police movement, slashed police budgets, and demonized entire police departments while crimes skyrocketed. Murders, carjackings, and retail thefts surged. We also saw leftist rogue prosecutors utterly fail to enforce the laws and uphold their oath of office. They refused to prosecute entire categories of crime, implemented cashless bail, released violent offenders back into society, and the list goes on and on. We have seen Democrats support sanctuary city policies and openly side with illegal immigrants over American citizens. Sanctuary jurisdictions proudly shield criminal aliens from Federal immigration authorities, regardless of the cost to the residents. Officials from these jurisdictions tie the hands of their very own police departments. We have seen time and again how these jurisdictions refuse to honor an ICE detainer, release a criminal alien back onto the streets, and then that alien commits another heinous crime. Almost one-third of the country lives in a sanctuary jurisdiction. That is roughly 100 million Americans. Where these failed policies took hold, chaos followed. Thankfully, the Trump administration has restored law and order. Because of President Trump, the border is secure. Because of President Trump, the homicide rate has declined an average of 21 percent in 35 major U.S. cities, reaching the lowest level recorded in over a century. Because of President Trump, we have seen the lowest number of drug overdoses since 2019. These historic results prove that when we enforce the law and prioritize prosecuting violent crime, American communities become safer for everyone. When law enforcement officers are empowered to do their jobs, American communities become safer for everyone. When politicians support the police instead of siding with radical activists, American communities become safer for everyone. To every police officer watching today, America sees you. We thank you. We stand with you. I urge my colleagues to support our brave men and women in law enforcement, reject policies that make Americans less safe, and support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 96.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1275, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 96) expressing support for law enforcement officers, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and celebrate Tim Reitz, the Executive Director for the House Freedom Caucus. For the last four years, Tim has led our caucus of conservative members with all the patience, diligence, resolve, and commitment needed for success. He is steadfast in his principles and unwavering in the face of immense pressure to leave those principles behind. He has stood by our side through some of our toughest battles-- electing a new Speaker of the House, fighting to bend down the federal spending curve, implementing President Trump's agenda, and even last week's effort to seek necessary reforms to FISA. Tim does not shy away from the fight. He is a happy warrior, determined to restore our Nation to the Founders' vision of freedom and limited government. Before coming to HFC, Tim served two members of his home state of Georgia, Paul Brown and my good friend and former HFC member, Jody Hice. But this week will be Tim's last in the House of Representatives as he embarks on a new adventure with the Conservative Partnership Institute. I have no doubt Tim will continue to be an asset to the conservative cause. I am deeply grateful for his devoted service and wish him well in his new endeavor.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6409, the FENCES Act. Washington has ignored a simple fact that every Arizonan knows firsthand. Eighty percent of the air pollution in Maricopa County, Arizona's largest county, with a population of approximately 5.5 million people, is caused by natural phenomena or international transport. Wildfire smoke from California, Canada, and Mexico, dust storms across the desert, and emissions drifting in from China and Mexico are all outside our control. Yet Arizona was penalized with stricter Federal mandates, threatening jobs and growth in one of the fastest growing regions in America. That makes no sense because Arizona--and Maricopa County specifically--is home to economic and technological development that will better the lives of Arizonans and Americans nationwide. From semiconductor manufacturing to aerospace and national defense facilities, Arizona is building the industries that keep America competitive. These employers depend on fair, predictable permitting, not rules that punish us for pollution blowing in from another country. Arizona's leaders have invested in real outreach and compliance tools that have cut controllable emissions by 50 percent since 2000, but no State should be forced to impose more regulations on families and small businesses for pollution that they did not cause nor can they remedy. That is exactly where the FENCES Act is necessary. The FENCES Act restores the original intent of the Clean Air Act by making clear that all foreign emissions, natural or man-made, are excluded when EPA conducts air quality reviews. Democrats would continue to penalize States like Arizona for these uncontrollable sources. Democrats want to continue to impose costly delays, Federal sanctions, and unnecessary burdens on manufacturers, communities, and States. Earlier this year, President Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin recognized the impact of these onerous rules and stopped their negative effects in Maricopa County, but no State should have to rely on the unpredictability and capriciousness of any administration. Congress must act so that no future EPA can arbitrarily punish Arizona or any State for emissions beyond our borders. The FENCES Act is grounded in sound science and common sense. It protects jobs, supports investment, and ensures environmental rules focus on what States can actually control. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the FENCES Act. Let's pass it today.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of my good friend, Michael Tennant. For the last 14 years, Mike has served as chairman of the Sun Lakes Republican Club, an active East Valley community in my district. He is a true patriot. Mike was born on November 25, 1949, in Orion, Illinois. He had a long career with International Harvester in Illinois and Wisconsin, but ultimately settled with his lovely wife, Sandy, in the great State of Arizona. Mike's life wasn't without its challenges. While living in Wisconsin, he courageously battled leukemia and survived, thanks to a lifesaving bone marrow transplant from his brother. Since retiring to Sun Lakes, Mike has dedicated his time to serving his community. He is well known as a grassroots activist for the conservative cause. I am also happy to see a smiling face at grassroots meetings, rallies with the President, get-out-the-vote efforts, and more. I am truly grateful to Mike for following his call to service and to Sandy for supporting him. As Mike steps down as chairman after 14 years of dedicated leadership, I am honored to celebrate him here today and to call him a friend.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 139) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring a balanced budget for the Federal Government.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.J. Res. 139.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today our national debt exceeds $38 trillion and grows second by second. On a per-person basis, the national debt amounts to $113,000 for every person living in the United States. For generations, Congress has chosen to max out our national credit card and leave the bill to the next generation instead of having hard conversations about spending. Families across our Nation have had these hard conversations, and they balance their budgets. The leaders of this Nation should do the same. Americans know that debt comes with strings attached. Every dollar we spend beyond our means today is a dollar and change we must repay tomorrow. It is no different for government. The more America borrows, the more expensive every next borrowed dollar becomes. Indeed, annual Federal spending on interest is now one of the largest line items we have. We spend more on interest than we do on Medicare. We spend more on interest than we do on national defense. Republicans and Democrats may have different policy ideas and priorities, but surely we can all agree that a budget hamstrung by huge interest payments benefits nobody. Our fiscal trajectory is alarming and unsustainable. Higher-than- expected interest rates or other challenges could trigger a debt spiral. It has happened to other countries throughout history. Without changes, it will happen to us. The day of reckoning will come, and it will not be big and beautiful. It will be big and ugly. There are two choices: spend a lot less on the future or spend a little less starting today. I choose the second option. That is why I support the balanced budget amendment. It is the only way to cement our commitment to long-term fiscal stability. A 5-year path to balance will allow us to make prudent spending choices to gradually balance the budget and wean us from our reliance on deficit spending. It is simple. The balanced budget amendment will restore fiscal sanity and take us off the path to an economic calamity. But the balanced budget amendment will not merely beat back a future fiscal crisis. It will also reduce the cost of living here and now. The enormous Federal debt is currently driving up borrowing costs for all Americans. Mortgages, car payments, and student loans are all more expensive because of Congress' profligacy and irresponsibility. We saw the disastrous effects of budget-busting deficit spending during the catastrophic 4 years of Biden-Harris rule. With the eager support of Democrats in Congress, the Biden-Harris administration approved $4.7 trillion in new deficit spending, ultimately racking up $8.5 trillion in new debt. What did the average American get? The worst inflation in 40 years. When Biden-Harris took over in January of 2021, inflation was just at 1.4 percent per annum. By the middle of the term, it exceeded 9 percent per annum. Inflation is a tax on everyone, but we all know who it hurts the most: the poor, the working class, seniors on fixed incomes, and American families, who saw their expenses explode and their salaries stay flat. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.