Andy Biggs

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris).

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Raskin for his helpful suggestions that will make this bill much better and has made it much better. I thank Ranking Member McBath for her support as well. It is our desire to bring these malevolent-hearted people who are filled with evil and criminal intention to justice and to protect our children. Madam Speaker, I urge the swift passage of this bill out of the House and the Senate and to get it signed and enacted, and I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Malliotakis.) The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6732, as amended.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor the life and legacy of my friend and colleague, Congressman Doug LaMalfa. As you know, Doug was a happy warrior who cared immensely about his country, his State, and the people he served. A few years ago, he took time out of his busy schedule to travel with me to Arizona to better understand the border crisis and the serious impact it was having on my State as well as his own. Doug was always willing to listen, learn, and engage on the issues that matter most. He was the most curious man. I thoroughly enjoyed working with him on a wide range of policies and challenges that uniquely affect the West and the hardworking communities we both represent. Doug was a true friend. He will be deeply missed in this Congress and beyond. My team and I continue to pray for Doug, his family, and for all who loved him during this particularly difficult time. May God bless Doug LaMalfa's memory and may he rest in peace.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, this particular amendment is a very simple and straightforward amendment. It deals with ranching lands that have been used for more than 40 years. It gives the ranchers the flexibility they need without Washington bureaucrats second-guessing their operations. In Arizona and, in fact, the entire Western United States, drought cycles can last decades. In fact, Arizona and much of the West have been in a 30-year drought. Under the current 5-year window, pauses that ranchers and farmers might take can often revert to wetlands, triggering EPA oversight that locks out grazing. My amendment recognizes the reality of the West and protects these parcels so they can return to production when conditions improve without fear of Federal reclamation. During the Biden administration, expansive WOTUS interpretations treated dry washes and ephemeral streams as navigable waters, piling on permits that crippled ranchers and farmers in the West. Without grazing, it triggers something more devastating in some respects, which is wildfires. We have had a bit of a wet year. We have grasslands in part of the West now that are 2 feet in height. When the summer comes and the heat comes and they dry up, this will trigger massive wildfires. Ranchers in my own district have spent hundreds of thousands, even millions, on compliance costs, environmental assessments, and legal fees just to access lands they have stewarded for generations and, in some case, almost 100 years. This overreach hurts family ranchers and contributes to a shrinking U.S. cattle herd, now at its lowest level since the 1950s, driving beef prices up more than 14 percent in the last year. By opening more land and cutting red tape, this amendment empowers ranchers to expand grazing, manage habitat, control wildfires, and meet market needs. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, what I would suggest is that folks come out West and take a look at the land. Take a look at land that has been determined to be wetlands, dry washes, and ephemeral streams. Then ask the question: Why is that a wetland? When we get great rains, what, once every 3 years, that wash gets filled. When we do not allow grazing, what happens is there is time for wildfires. The habitat is endangered, and things aren't better; they are worse. This amendment helps cure that. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of any time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, I think we have made the case here. We are not abandoning lands. We are taking lands that have been in production for over 40 years. They have to let it lie fallow and let it grow. My colleagues across the aisle are saying: We don't care if they have to let it lie fallow. We don't care what the reality is in the West. All we care about is protecting the bureaucratic rule. Mr. Chair, that is a doggone shame because beef production is incredibly low right now. Beef consumption is projected to be 28.6 billion pounds this year. It is falling because of high prices. What are we doing? We are saying we are going to import it from Argentina. When a county in my State normally has 60,000 head, and over the last 10 years that has gone down to 25,000 head, that is because of this rule that needs to be changed. Mr. Chair, I urge passage of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, I want to give context to folks about the West, but, particularly, my own home State. In my State, which is the sixth largest geographically in the Nation, only 18 percent of the land is privately owned. All of the rest, 82 percent, is controlled by a government entity, State, Federal, or reservation. My amendment is common sense and targeted. It directs the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to review lands under their jurisdiction within 1 year and identify parcels suitable for water recharge projects like aquifer recharge and surface infiltration. That is a very limited scope of the federally controlled land in Arizona. It streamlines permitting under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and it minimizes red tape through categorical exclusions in collaboration with State agencies. This ensures Federal lands become partners in water management, not barriers, allowing Arizona communities to secure the water they need. In Arizona, water is life, yet over 95 percent of rainfall evaporates before it can even recharge aquifers. Even a small increase in recharge could substantially boost underground water supplies in Arizona. Drought cycles and Federal restrictions have idled vast areas and threatened water security. My amendment promotes recharge efforts on Federal lands, giving States the tools to capture and store water before it is lost. Mr. Chair, I want you to know, in the 18 percent of land, we lead the world in recharge. We lead the world in recharge, and when you can recharge underground aquifers, Mr. Chair, you save lives and you promote good environmental quality. Under the Biden administration, routine water projects became regulatory nightmares with EPA restrictions untailored to Arizona's desert reality. Securing permits often means chaotic delays from Federal bureaucracies, even to access water on lands the Federal Government controls, which is over 80 percent of Arizona. With only 18 percent of Arizona privately owned, streamlined Federal permitting is essential. My amendment delivers by identifying hydrologically suitable Federal land and cutting bureaucracy. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, this amendment empowers local entities to expand recharge efforts keeping aquifers full and communities strong in Arizona and the West. Arizona's rural economy depends on agriculture and ranching. We cannot allow water shortages to slow growth or drive up food costs nationwide. By investing in groundwater and stormwater recharge, this amendment increases supplies, lowers costs for farmers, and strengthens the domestic food chain. It removes red tape so Arizona can secure water for future generations. Identifying Federal lands for recharge is simple, it is necessary, and it is appropriate. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. This bill would nullify President Trump's Executive Order No. 14251, which rightly excluded 40 national security agencies from collective bargaining. Agencies like FEMA, the Coast Guard, the CDC, and the VA cannot afford to be paralyzed by union red tape when lives are on the line. I want to emphasize that this is going to nullify an executive order. It is going to attack his agenda, the America First agenda, that he was overwhelmingly elected to enact. These unions are not neutral actors. The word ``billionaires'' was mentioned by my colleague from California. I am glad he mentioned the term ``billion,'' because that is what the partisan machine government union spent in the last election, just under $1 billion, $980 million of it going to Democrats, which explains in no small measure the rationale for the movement of this bill to negate President Trump's executive order. In its final days, the Biden administration rushed to lock in long- term union contracts designed to tie President Trump's hands for a second term. H.R. 2550 preserves those deals signed after President Trump was reelected but before Inauguration Day. That undermines the will of the voters and the authority of the Commander in Chief. It is legislative sabotage, and we shouldn't give in to that. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 explicitly gives the President authority to exclude agencies from collective bargaining when national security is at stake. This would undo that. Presidents from Carter to Reagan to Trump have exercised this authority. Courts have already sided with President Trump, affirming that in matters of national security, the President enjoys ``unique responsibility.'' Arizona knows too well the cost of bureaucratic failure. The Phoenix VA scandal shows what happens when accountability is lost. Veterans died waiting for care. We must not allow unions to dictate policy if it is going to impact national security, if it is going to affect our borders, if it is going to affect our energy, and if it is going to affect protecting Americans during pandemics. In a State where public safety and national defense are daily realities, my State, this bill would put union bosses ahead of the American people and in front of Arizonans. In 2024 alone, the political arm of the Democratic Party, the four largest public-sector unions, spent $900 million-plus on progressive politics, and 86 percent of it came from their member dues. They are using taxpayer-backed salaries to fund partisan activism, not to serve the American people. H.R. 2550 strips the President of his constitutional authority, undermines national security, and rewards partisan obstruction. President Trump is trying to fulfill his duty to protect the American people. Congress should not stand in his way. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with the President, put America's security ahead of union politics, and vote ``no.''

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has turned the criminal code into a labyrinth, a maze so bloated and disorganized that not even the DOJ can tell you how many Federal crimes exist. That is why I rise in strong support of H.R. 2159, the Count the Crimes to Cut Act, led by my friend, Chip Roy from Texas, Representative McBath, who is the ranking member on our Subcommittee of Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, and supported by Members of both parties who understand that freedom collapses when the law becomes unknowable. This bill is co-led by staunch conservatives like Representative Roy and myself and our colleagues, who occasionally think differently than us, Mrs. McBath and Mr. Cohen. We disagree on a lot in this Chamber, but we should all agree that Americans should know what conduct is criminal before they are punished for it. The Count the Crimes to Cut Act forces the DOJ to produce a complete list of every Federal criminal statute with the specific legal elements, the authorized penalties, and the number of prosecutions for each offense over the last 15 years. Right now, we literally cannot tell the American people how many Federal crimes exist. I called the Congressional Research Service several years ago because I was interested in this. They said we have no idea. Estimates range from 4,000 statutes to hundreds of thousands of criminalized regulations, but no one actually knows because Washington has never bothered to count them. This is the very definition of overcriminalization: vague laws, hidden laws, duplicative laws, and regulatory crimes that nobody could reasonably expect an ordinary citizen to find or understand. The Federal code has grown so bloated that a person can unknowingly violate a regulation they have never heard of and the government can still throw the book at them. Even former Harvard University Professor Harvey Silverglate estimates that the average American commits three felonies a day without even knowing it. Dr. Silverglate clearly wasn't referring to violent felonies like murder or felonies like money laundering or fraud, but instead to those vague, hidden, duplicative and sometimes downright silly laws. I have other pending legislation; the End Endless Criminal Statutes Act to repeal 10 unnecessary criminal offenses such as selling or possessing colored oleomargarine or colored margarine unless they are packaged and labeled or served in a triangular shape. That is far from the only silly law still on the books. It is illegal to use a falconry bird in a movie that isn't about falconry, to sell runny ketchup, or to leave the country with too many nickels in your pockets. Here is the deal: We just have too many laws and too many crimes. When the Federal Criminal Code becomes a weapon instead of a guide, it is always the most vulnerable, the poor, the small business owners, the persons who don't have a legal team on retainer who gets crushed first. Overcriminalization is one of the most destructive features of the modern Federal leviathan. We cannot restore liberty, shrink government, or protect due process unless we first expose the scope of the problem and that is what this bill attempts to do. I am so pleased to be a sponsor, but I am proud to associate with my cosponsors, Mr. Roy, Mrs. McBath, Mr. Cohen, and others. This is very simple, Mr. Speaker: If you believe in liberty, you vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2159. If you believe the government should be accountable to the people, you vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2159. If you believe that Americans deserve to know the laws that can put them behind bars, you vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2159. It is bipartisan, common sense, and long overdue. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Count the Crimes to Cut Act.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Norman for raising this issue. To me, this is an interesting issue because I am hearing the argument that is coming at us, and it says, well, there is no due process. Well, debate is a part of due process. A part of due process is to have this debate. You get to stand up and defend, and you get to raise your issues. The Democrats chose to take it back to committee, which as Mr. Roy said, that kind of indicates that maybe you know that there is something that is not great about this. I am looking at this, and here is at least one of the exchanges that seems to have taken place. Maybe we will hear some comment about it. That would be good. They can make some comment about it. In this exchange, Mr. Epstein sent a text message to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands. This is the quote: He brings up Rhona, keeper of the secrets. Who is he referring to? Rhona Graff. That is a Trump assistant. Plaskett responds: Rhona? Quick, I am up next. Is that an acronym? She wants to know what Mr. Epstein wants her to talk about. Don't you find that interesting? I find that really intriguing, especially since we know what Mr. Epstein was. Mr. Epstein responds: That is his assistant. He doesn't really say much more than that. Then Plaskett starts questioning Mr. Cohen and asks about Graff. Not only was she texting, having this communication with Mr. Epstein, she is asking Mr. Cohen what Mr. Epstein wants her to ask. Another text from Epstein says: Good work. That is after she wraps it up. All of this seems to be very interesting. I am sorry that I don't breathe the rarefied air of the Intelligence Committee. I don't. I am just a regular guy and a Member of the House, that is all, so I don't know about that rarefied air. I guess I am part of the sewage that Mr. Himes said. Yeah. Thanks for agreeing with me, Ms. Plaskett. She has got us down. Unless you are in the Intelligence Committee, you are crap. That is what the Intel Committee says. But here is the deal: When you are sitting there in a sitting committee, and you are having communications with a convicted sex offender, and you are taking their advice on how to ask questions, maybe you have a problem. Maybe your problem is that you brought disrepute on the House. This isn't from the articles. This is from the 10,000 pages or so released last week from the Oversight Committee that they received from the Epstein estate. This isn't fishing around. This is coming from real evidence. Mr. Speaker, I sit here, and I listen: Oh, she is the finest Member that ever walked the planet. That is what we heard. The bottom line is she is sitting there, seeking advice and counsel on how to ask questions from Jeffrey Epstein, who this entire body, save one, just condemned. We want all of the evidence. It is a shame to be here but for one thing, which is: She made the choice. Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone in this body to support Mr. Norman's resolution.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 722, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 719) honoring the life and legacy of Charles ``Charlie'' James Kirk, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 the measure under consideration.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 719, a resolution honoring the life and legacy of Charlie Kirk. Just last week, on September 10, we tragically lost a tremendous leader and friend. A cowardly, deranged, and unstable assassin, who was radicalized by leftwing ideology, murdered a conservative icon over political disagreements. Charlie Kirk was an inspiration to an entire generation and will be remembered as someone who changed the very course of our country. However, his most important role was as a loving husband, father, and devout Christian who shared his faith unapologetically. My thoughts and prayers are with Erika and Charlie's two young children. We know and appreciate that Charlie Kirk was a man committed to his faith, his family, and this Nation. He dedicated his life to protecting and defending the God-given rights enshrined in our founding documents. He worked tirelessly to demonstrate how to engage in peaceful and meaningful political dialogue. The life of our Republic depends on resolving political differences through spirited debate, the ballot box, and embracing the rule of law. Political violence has no place in this country. Violent rhetoric, such as describing political opponents as fascists or Nazis, is unacceptable. Charlie's assassination was a deliberate, targeted attack. It was meant to silence a conservative voice. This assassination was meant to instill fear and chill debate, but we have responded and will continue to respond with courage. We will double down on the work Charlie dedicated his life to. With this resolution today, we firmly condemn the attack that cut his life short. I thank Speaker Johnson for leading this effort to honor Charlie Kirk. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what did Charlie do that was so unique? Charlie invited people to come up to meet and debate him openly and without hostility or ridicule. He would go to college campuses. They would do a popup tent. He would sit there, and there would invariably be a large crowd. He would say, if you disagree with me, we want you to come up first, come to the front of the line. Then, he would have that debate, and invariably, he would win. Why would he win? Because Charlie was a smart guy. Charlie was prepared. Charlie knew the answers. The other incredible thing, if you ever wanted to see a good set of debates, was when Charlie was at Oxford University debating. That was absolutely phenomenal, and I encourage all to watch that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), the Honorable Speaker of the House and my friend.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority leader and my friend.

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cloud).

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).