Andy Biggs

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, histrionics and misdirection won't cover the historical hypocrisy of the reckless spending of Democrats who now even choose to keep parts of the government shut down. Under the Biden administration, the national debt grew by an unprecedented--unprecedented--$8.5 trillion. By the way, this used to be a bipartisan issue. When the gentleman mentioned Bill Clinton, I think: Yeah, that is the last time everybody came together from both parties that actually produced a balanced budget. The gentleman asks: Well, why don't Republicans do it now? It is because we would like to invite the other side to do it with us. We would like to invite the other side to do it with us, but they don't want to do it with us. In fact, the gentleman just basically announced that he would like to repeal the tax act and give us the largest tax increase in national history. What did we get from the runaway spending of Joe Biden? When Biden-Harris took over in January, inflation was at 1.4 percent. By the middle of the term it was over 9 percent. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will reduce debt to GDP, flip primary deficits into surpluses by 2034, and reduce the deficit by about $4.5 trillion relative to the policy baseline prior to enactment, all of this while averting the largest tax hike in American history that my colleague across the aisle basically just announced they are going to enact upon the American people if they become the majority. Democrats have proposed radical bills that far exceed the alleged cost of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Let us see what they have done. The Green New Deal will cost $93 trillion over 10 years. That is theirs. Their Medicare for All proposal will cost $32 trillion over 10 years. Mr. Speaker, forgive me if I think they are projecting a bit on this one here. The simple truth is a balanced budget amendment would hold both parties accountable. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris).

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I find that the argument that is presented by the gentleman from Maryland seems delusional at best--delusional at best. This amendment doesn't target programs. It targets overspending. Congress must live within the revenue Americans already provide, and that is about $5.5 trillion a year. The two-thirds threshold applies to tax hikes, not program cuts. Receipts have been stable for decades. Spending is what is out of control. Spending is what is out of control, and they fail to acknowledge it. What is delusional is for the Democrats to have the audacity to say that they are the party of fiscal responsibility when they are trying to impose the Green New Deal, $93 trillion over 10 years. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde), my friend.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, during the gentleman from Texas' recent comments, so recently given, the national debt rose by $125,000. Just keep that in mind. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), my friend and chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will set the record straight on that history. It was very colorful but a little bit inaccurate. If you remember, it was the '96 budget that was balanced. It was balanced with all the Republicans and a plurality of Democrats. It would have been nice if it would have been unanimous, wouldn't it? It would have been nice, but we couldn't get there. Perhaps all the rhetoric you have heard today is political partisanship. It is posturing from that side of the aisle over there and maybe some from us because it is a bipartisan problem. I think the previous speaker just said what are the odds of us ever just doing it on our own. That is right. Hell froze over once about 30 years ago. Are we going to wait 30 years again until the structural deficit exceeds $5 trillion a year when we actually have a national debt that is somewhere north of $100 trillion? We are not going to last that long. We need to do this now. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder), my friend.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I think in one sense he is right on the money. Both parties can share in the blame of this massive, structural national debt we have, but I will point out that in 2001 when taxes were cut, something happened in 2001 which changed the trajectory of the entire Nation, and we are still dealing with the fallout. You will remember it. We called that 9/11, right? Some things happened in 2001, which changed our spending. That is important to recall. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), my friend.

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

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, hyperbole and sophistry right here on the floor of the House from politicians, who would have thunk it? Really, who would have thunk it? I get a big kick out of that. Do you know what the national debt was when Barack Obama became President? It was $8 trillion. Do you know what it was when he left? It was $20 trillion. Do you know what the gentleman from Maryland did? He defended every wild-eyed, anticonstitutional program and every abuse of the First Amendment under the Biden administration. When you had reporters being castigated, investigated, and prosecuted, not a peep from him. Not a peep, but, boy golly, he is going to come up here and attack President Trump. That is what he is going to do, and then he has the audacity to talk about abasement--abasement of this body, and to say that we have absolute control over all three bodies. I wish we did. That would mean that we had 60 Republican Senators in the Senate. Quite frankly, I have a major problem with that because that is a supermajoritarian body under the cloture rule. That wasn't contemplated by the Founders either. They thought it would be a simple majority. The rationale for his argument is that James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wouldn't have said it, but do you know what? James Madison and Alexander Hamilton would have said that we are not going to have direct elections of Senators. They are going to be elected by their State legislature. That rationale doesn't make sense in this argument. It is specious and weak. That is the rationale that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are throwing at us today. The gentleman said that we have never needed a balanced budget amendment before. Perhaps he is correct, but we sure have a massive structural deficit today. We have a structural deficit because, even though we bring in a record amount--a record amount--of revenue, we keep spending more. This body doesn't have the political will. That is the point that our side has been making. We don't have the political will, not on our side or the minority's side. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to turn this constantly into a partisan affair. I am saying that both sides have recklessly spent too much--both sides. Madam Speaker, do you know who is punished by it? It is not us. It is not us. It is the American people. It is the American people who are taking the burden of feckless, blind spending and reckless spending. Even if you get the record amount of revenue, this body is not going to make a concomitant amount of spending. It is going to spend more. It will always spend more. We will always spend more. Only if we have a balanced budget amendment, which, by the way, used to be a bipartisan issue. It used to be a bipartisan issue on the national debt and deficit. Both parties' national security leaders used to say that that is our number one security threat. I mean for 25 years, a generation or more. Madam Speaker, we don't hear that today from my colleagues. It is too bad. I wish we did. Man, I wish we did. I wish we could both say: Let's put this together. It is delusional. It is delusional. The fact of the matter is that what was spent during COVID--massive amounts, literally trillions of dollars--without any productive capacity to go with it fueled the Biden-era inflation, and we are dealing with that today. Oddly enough, the inflation rate under President Trump is back down to almost what it was when he left. That is the reality. How about my Democratic colleagues saying that we are going to put in the Green New Deal program. Remember that one? Yes. It was $93 trillion worth of spending with no pay-for over a 10-year period. It was $93 trillion. Medicare for all, $33 trillion over a 10-year period, no pay-for. Madam Speaker, do you know what the pay-for is? We are going to print more money. We are going to print more money, and do you know what that does? It devalues your currency. By the way, the valuation of currency is the classic definition of ``inflation'' because you can't buy as much with the same dollar. You are always going to need more. People think that we have seen hyperinflation. We haven't seen hyperinflation. Do you know when we are going to see hyperinflation? We are going to see hyperinflation when the bond markets start saying: Guess what. You guys are effectively bankrupt, and we are not lending you any more money. That is when the big calamity hits. When that hits, there won't be anybody here who can say that this is a partisan issue. Both parties will be at fault. I pray to God that both sides here today will vote for this amendment. Get it to the people. Let the people actually impose upon us what 49 States have, and that is a requirement for a balanced budget. If we couldn't print our own money, we would have already collapsed. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, nothing angers a law-abiding American more than being stolen from and then watching the system let the thief go to do it over and over again. Our immigration system only works when people who come here follow our laws and want to build the American Dream, not strip it away from the very people who make this country work. Right now that trust is broken. These are not small scams. They are organized, deliberate fraud schemes that target the most vulnerable among us: a single mother relying on food assistance or an elderly couple who spent a lifetime paying into Social Security, or a child whose identity is stolen before they can even speak. Here is the part that makes no sense. Under current law, defrauding the U.S. or stealing taxpayer dollars is not explicitly a deportable offense. That loophole has allowed criminal fraud networks to operate for decades. We have seen the consequences. In Minnesota, Somali fraud networks stole millions, and Federal prosecutors now estimate Medicaid fraud in that State alone could hit $9 billion. Even in my own home State of Arizona, fraud exceeds billions of dollars. However, Minnesota isn't the outlier. It is the warning sign. A GAO report found nearly 3 million Social Security numbers with evidence of misuse. A Cuban national defrauded Medicare of more than $3 million through a fake medical equipment scheme. A 3-year-old child had her Social Security number used to take out credit cards and auto loans. These are not isolated cases. Fraudsters can exploit SNAP, Social Security, Medicare, and other programs because the law does not clearly state that these crimes make an alien removable from the U.S. Litigation delays and loopholes let these offenders stay here and continue to harm Americans while their victims struggle to recover. The Deporting Fraudsters Act of 2026 closes that gap, and it does it with simple, commonsense steps. It makes clear that any alien who defrauds the U.S. or steals government funds intended for American citizens is inadmissible and deportable. It ensures that an alien's own admission to committing fraud can trigger consequences because courts in multiple circuits have ruled that certain Social Security fraud offenses do not automatically carry immigration penalties. It bars these offenders from receiving immigration benefits, including asylum, so they cannot exploit our generosity twice. This is not complicated. If a person comes to this country to build a life, then follow our laws and contribute. We will welcome that person. If a person comes here to steal from American taxpayers, that person doesn't get to stay. Becoming an American is a privilege. It carries responsibilities, and when someone abuses that privilege by stealing from the very people who welcome them, then they forfeit the right to remain here. This act is a commonsense reform that protects vulnerable Americans. I am proud and pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill. Now I will just touch on the Biden pardons. Literally hundreds of millions of restitution dollars forgone. In fact, one individual, Paul Daugerdas, was sentenced to 15 years in prison for his role in a multibillion-dollar tax fraud scheme described by prosecutors as one of the largest criminal tax fraud cases in U.S. history. Now, Mr. Speaker, why do I bring that up?

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, it is because my friend across the aisle is obsessed with this Trump derangement syndrome that we hear about so much. What about the 1,400 people who were pardoned in the last waning hours of the Biden administration? Many of them were fraudsters. Hundreds of millions of dollars in restitution is forgone. I didn't hear any outrage from the gentleman over that, but there should be outrage when an illegal alien is committing fraud. This bill will help make them inadmissible and deportable. That is what this bill is about. It is not some imaginary or delusional sophist argument that we are hearing from the other side.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I don't mean to respond, but I am going to have to respond here. I am going to first include in the Record: ``Biden clemency for committed fraudsters met with outrage: `Slap in the face.' '' [From FoxNews.com, Dec. 17, 2024] Biden Clemency for Convicted Fraudsters met With Outrage: `Slap in the Face' (By Breanne Deppisch, Alec Schemmel) President Biden made history last week when he granted clemency to more than 1,500 people with a sweeping list of commutations and pardons. However, the move was met with fierce backlash from critics pointing out various names on the clemency list included individuals who cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars through their fraudulent actions. Among those covered in what the Biden White House is calling the largest single-day act of clemency by a U.S. president was Rita Crundwell, a former comptroller in Dixon, Illinois. Crundwell was convicted and sentenced to nearly 20 years behind bars for using her position to steal nearly $54 million from the small town best known for the boyhood home of Ronald Reagan. Also on the list was former New York law partner Paul M. Daugerdas, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison for his role in a multibillion-dollar tax fraud scheme described by prosecutors as one of the largest criminal tax fraud cases in U.S. history, as well as Toyosi Alatishe, who abused his position as a caretaker for patients with severe mental deficiencies and physical disabilities by using their personal information to file fraudulent tax returns. In response to Biden's decision to grant clemency to Crundwell, Republican Illinois state Sen. Andrew Chesney called the move ``nothing short of a slap in the face to the people of Dixon.'' ``Her crimes did not only affect the taxpayers of Dixon, but they also had a rippling effect across the region and state, as communities became subject to stricter, more tedious regulations,'' Chesney said in a statement following the commutation of Crundwell's sentence. ``First, it was the pardoning of his son, and now Biden is apparently extending clemency to anyone with political connections, including corrupt government employees. It's sickening.'' Illinois Republican Rep. Darin LaHood echoed Chesney's remarks about the commutation being a ``slap in the face'' to those impacted by Crundwell's crime, adding that ``while many families in Dixon were living paycheck to paycheck, [Crundwell] took advantage of their trust in government and used her access to live an unearned life of luxury.'' In addition to schemes that defrauded public funds, many of the commutations Biden handed out went to white-collar criminals accused of defrauding their clients out of millions of dollars. Meanwhile, Biden also commuted the sentence of Michael Conahan, a former judge who imposed harsh sentences against juveniles in exchange for $2.8 million in illegal payments in what became known as a ``kids for cash'' scandal. ``I want to see [Conahan's] name removed because that's just . . . another slap in the face, another injustice, on top of all of the grief that everybody in this community has already endured,'' said Sandy Fonzo, whose son Edward committed suicide after being sent to a juvenile detention center for eight months after getting caught drinking underage. The administration commuted sentences for inmates who were on home confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic and who ``have successfully reintegrated into their families and communities,'' according to the announcement. This includes verification that the person's primary or a prior offense was not violent, a sex offense, or terrorism- related; ensured a low or minimum recidivism risk; and confirmed that the person was not engaged in violent or gang- related activity while incarcerated. All were on good behavior, and the decisions were not made on an individual basis. Between 2017 and 2021, then-President Trump granted just 143 pardons and 93 sentence commutations--amounting to just 2 percent of the clemency applications that his administration received, according to available Justice Department data.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman would have us believe is that Rita Crundwell, who stole $54 million from Dixon, Illinois, repaid that $54 million before she received her pardon. That is what we would have to believe. We would have to believe that Paul M. Daugerdas, sentenced to 15 years in prison for his role in a multibillion-dollar tax fraud scheme, one of the largest in history, had reimbursed the Federal Government for those multibillion dollars. We would have to believe that Toyosi Alatishe, who abused his position as a caretaker for patients by filing fraudulent tax returns on behalf of these poor folks, paid everything back. There is no indication of that from the Dixon, Illinois, folks. No indication at all. Mr. Speaker, I think I have made my case.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas, Mr. Roy, for yielding 2 minutes to me. Mr. Speaker, I will say this. This is really humorous to hear the machinations and the twisting and goings-on from our friends across the aisle. As they say, this is too much. Mr. Schumer denigrated Black people and basically said they can't get the IDs. Kamala Harris said rural folks can't get IDs. It is just too hard. That is BS. They know it is BS. The American people know it is BS. It is exactly why 85 percent of Americans say we need to do this. Let me just say that I come from a State that is the most unique State in the country because we have been, for years, requiring proof of citizenship when a person registers for a State ballot. We have to do that in Arizona, and we have had no suppression. We are the only State that does it because the Supreme Court ruled that way. Somehow, we can't do it for Federal ballots? Mr. Speaker, think about that. For an alderman or legislator in Arizona, we have to show proof of citizenship to register to vote. We can't do it for the President, though. How absurd is that? We have had no problems. There has been no voter suppression. They want to make it an issue because they don't want that proof, and we need to have that proof. Every rational American knows it is not suppression. It is common sense. That is why we need to show ID when we vote. It is popular in Arizona. It is popular across the country. We need to show our citizenship when we register to vote. That is what has to happen in Arizona. It will work across the country. There is not a doubt in my mind, and I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Yvonne Fedderson, cofounder of Childhelp, a national organization dedicated to the prevention and treatment of child abuse. Yvonne lived an amazing, divinely inspired life. In 1959, Yvonne was in her mid-twenties and in the midst of a successful acting career. She and Sara O'Meara, who became a close friend and cofounder of Childhelp, were on a USO tour in Japan when they found 11 Japanese-American orphans kicked out of their orphanage. Yvonne and Sara responded, finding them shelter and long-term care. What started as an effort to help these 11 children turned into a lifelong calling. Yvonne and Sara went on to open orphanages in Japan and Vietnam, saving tens of thousands of children. In the mid-1970s, at the behest of Nancy Reagan, they opened their first iteration of Childhelp in California. They have since created a nationwide network of assistance, including a 24/7 hotline, treatment centers, abuse prevention programs, and awareness campaigns. We are honored that they chose to headquarter Childhelp in Arizona. On January 23 of this year, at the age of 90, God called Yvonne home. I count it as a tremendous blessing to have known Yvonne and witnessed the profound impact she had on the lives of our most vulnerable, on our community, our State, and our Nation. Her legacy will endure.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the 43rd anniversary of the devastating Roe v. Wade decision. For nearly 50 years, Roe distorted our Constitution and did great harm to our Nation. The decision was not rooted in the text of the Constitution. Instead, the Court invented a constitutional right grounded in a vague, undefined concept of privacy that the Court itself struggled to explain. Roe silenced voters, sidelined legislatures, and eroded respect for the judiciary by turning judges into policymakers. Worst of all, it cost millions of innocent lives. In overturning Roe, the Supreme Court rightly corrected a grave legal error and returned authority to the States where it belongs. That restoration of constitutional order was long overdue. I also bid hello and welcome to my friends from the Center for Arizona Policy who are in the gallery today.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, nationwide injunctions are highly disfavored. There was a time that people across both sides of the aisle here recognized that. A certain judge named Boasberg continually exercises those nationwide injunctions, and that wouldn't necessarily be a problem, except he has repeatedly displayed bias and partisanship. For instance, without substance or evidence, he complained to Chief Justice Roberts that he didn't think President Trump would comply with judicial orders. That displayed his bias, Mr. Chairman. That displayed his partisanship. Without legal authority and without precedent, Judge Boasberg ordered the government to turn around planes that were in international airspace, conducting a military operation. That is what he insisted upon. The appellate court rejected Judge Boasberg's theories regarding that incident. Do you know what Judge Boasberg did? He didn't care what the appellate court said because he is biased. He is prejudiced. Judge Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to come in and explain further why they violated what he felt was his authority, which the appellate court said was not rational. Judge Boasberg is the one who issued surveillance subpoenas against Members of this body and the United States Senate, against Federal law, Mr. Chair. It was against Federal law. Judge Boasberg issued nondisclosure orders.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, when we see this pattern and we know that he has displayed and said that he has bias against President Trump, he no longer is a fair arbiter, and he must be reckoned with.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my friend, Representative Crane's, amendment. I take umbrage with the last comments made. If this was such a doggone great program, then why has it been unauthorized by this body for more than 20 years? The reason is it has lost its moorings. It is wandering around. It hasn't complied with transparency requirements. It more closely resembles covert political operations designed to entangle the United States in foreign disputes and undermine diplomatic efforts than support them. Their board and staff overwhelmingly donate to Democratic candidates. They even demanded the removal of Congresswoman Elise Stefanik from the board for defending President Trump, a clear sign of ideological capture, and that is the biggest problem. They have lost their way. They cannot be trusted. We should not give them another dime.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue. I thank all the members of our Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, both Republicans and Democrats, for working together on these very important issues. Mr. Speaker, sextortion has become a devastating crisis. Predators threaten to release explicit images of minors to extort money, more content, or compliance, preying on shame and fear. Protecting children from online sexual exploitation remains a top priority for our Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance in this Congress. Offenders, often overseas or even juveniles, groom victims and then weaponize images or AI-generated deepfakes pulled from public photos to demand payment or further abuse. This drives severe trauma, self-harm, and suicide. More than three dozen teens have taken their lives in recent cases, with boys aged 14 to 17 hit hardest. Reports of these horrible crimes are surging. NCMEC, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, reports that financial sextortion cases jumped from over 13,800 in early 2024 to nearly 24,000 in early 2025. The FBI logged nearly 55,000 sextortion reports in 2024 alone, with $33 million in losses. I commend the FBI for its investigations and public alerts. Current law, 18 U.S.C. 2252 and 2252A, does not explicitly cover threats to distribute child sexual abuse material or images believed to be of minors. That gap limits prosecution. The Combating Online Predators Act closes that gap by criminalizing knowing threats to distribute these depictions with intent to coerce or extort. This is a targeted bipartisan fix that gives prosecutors the tools they need to stop these predators and protect our kids. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill. I hope that this bill passes out of the House today and swiftly passes out of the Senate to be signed by the President.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his work on this bill and the bipartisan work from the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, which has worked on this, and I appreciate that very much. The ranking member, the whole committee, and the entire Committee on the Judiciary has banded together, which if you ever watched the Judiciary Committee, you would know that this is a remarkable time. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the support that we have here because anyone who exploits a child for sexual purposes must face full accountability and must face the full measure of the law. There cannot be loopholes or technicalities that would let predators slip through the cracks, and when we find them, this body has to fix that. Protecting minors from sexual exploitation remains a core priority for our Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance. A recent decision by the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Howard exposed a dangerous gap in current law. Both of the previous speakers have spoken to that, but that really is the crux of this. The court overturned a conviction for producing child sexual abuse material because the minor--a sleeping, clothed child--was merely present in the video, not touched, actively involved, or engaged. In that case, the defendant filmed himself in sexual conduct near his 9-year-old niece. The court ruled that he did not use her under existing statute because she was passive. That interpretation is utterly unacceptable. Predators should not evade justice simply because the child whom they exploit is unaware. The harm is real. The intent is clear. This loophole weakens 18 United States Code, section 2251(a), and related statutes, making it harder to prosecute offenders and easier for exploiters to walk free and then exploit others and create more victims. The Child Predators Accountability Act of 2025 closes this gap by clarifying that a minor is engaged in sexually explicit conduct when the offender intentionally includes the child in the depiction, even passively. This is a straightforward, bipartisan fix that ensures that Federal law captures these heinous acts and imposes the penalties that they deserve.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I commend law enforcement for their tireless work of protecting children, and I commend the work of this committee and the lead sponsor of this bill, Mr. Harris. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6715 so that every child predator is fully held to account. Let's do this today. Let's get it out of the Senate quickly and get it up to the President's desk to be signed and enacted immediately.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6732) to prohibit unlawful coercion of a minor, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 the bill.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the horror of child abuse and exploitation online continues to remain a significant problem across the country. The Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance made combating child exploitation a top priority in the 118th Congress, and we continue to do so in the 119th Congress. Unfortunately, criminals are continuously finding new ways to force minors to commit sexual or violent acts against themselves or others. Violent online networks are methodically targeting vulnerable underage populations across the United States. These violent groups, often known as gore groups, target children and force them into unthinkable acts of violence against themselves, against others, and even against animals. These groups use social media or other popular platforms such as Roblox or Discord to elicit private information or sexual images from minors, and they use that information and that material to blackmail victims into mutilating themselves or taking other violent action against friends, family members, or pets. Many of these networks rapidly emerge, create alliances, and then quickly dissolve, making it difficult to determine leadership structure. Many criminal actors are located overseas, and many of these offenders are also minors themselves. The most prominent example is the online extremist network known as 764. Mr. Speaker, 764 is a decentralized online network that glorifies violence and encourages participation in criminal activities such as sextortion and doxing. A disturbed young man, who has since been arrested and jailed, started the 764 network in 2020. While decentralized, the group has grown into a vast array of online predators seemingly in a dark competition of who can manipulate children to commit the most violent acts. In 2024, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMIC, Cyber Tipline, the Nation's centralized reporting system for the online abuse and exploitation of minors, received more than 1,300 reports of exploitation with a connection to a violent online group. By August of 2025, NCMIC had already received more than 1,000 similar reports. A law enforcement officer stated of these groups: ``If you can get someone to self-harm, you are doing quite well in that group. If you can get them to kill themselves, you are reaching the pinnacle.'' In April 2025, the FBI Richmond field office shared a public information video warning parents about a ``new threat to kids' safety.'' According to former Deputy Director Dan Bongino, the FBI has more than 300 active investigations into these groups, and that number continues to grow, but they were having difficulty preparing for prosecution because of gaps in our law. I applaud the FBI for taking crucial steps to both raise awareness of this issue and hold predators accountable. However, more tools are needed from Congress to ensure that these heinous individuals are prosecuted. The conduct of groups such as the 764 network do not always fit neatly into existing criminal statutes, which potentially jeopardizes prosecutions. The Coercion and Sexual Abuse Free Environment Act, CSAFE, criminalizes compelling or enticing a minor to engage in self-harm, engage in animal crushing, or to commit acts of self-mutilation or self-branding. We can all find common ground with this commonsense legislation. These are grotesque crimes that must be prosecuted to the fullest extent. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I commend both sides of the aisle for working on this legislation. It is my hope and fondest wish that we pass this bill out of this House today, get it to the Senate, and get it up to the President for signing and enactment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lee).