Clay Higgins

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Champagne family and celebrate the 100th anniversary of Champagne's Marche, a family-owned business that has served the people of Louisiana with exceptional service for three generations exemplifying a commitment to family and community. One hundred years ago, Walter and Alma Champagne opened the doors to a small neighborhood store in Port Barre, Louisiana. It took an entire week before the first customer walked through the door, but the Champagne's never wavered. They earned the community's trust through hard work, fair prices, and good service. The same spirit has guided the Champagne family for a century. Howard and Sarah Champagne expanded the business with a new store in 1979, and Richard and Angela Champagne carried the family tradition into a third generation, growing Champagne's Marche into a destination known for its king cakes, sausage, boudin, chicken salad, and many other Louisiana specialties. Generation after generation, the Champagne family has carried forward the values established in 1926. Today, the fourth generation stands ready to continue that legacy. Champagne's Marche stands as a testament to the enduring strength of Louisiana's family-owned businesses. They create jobs, support local farmers and producers, invest in our communities, and preserve our unique culture. Congratulations to the entire Champagne family on this achievement. May God continue to bless their family, employees, and customers.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and express gratitude for my dear friend and chief of staff, Andrew David, who is seated next to me here. Andrew has served by my side for over 9 years. We have toiled together to serve we the people. I have great sorrow in my heart that Andrew is leaving the office. He has accepted a beautiful and meaningful position in our home State of Louisiana, and I have an odd mixture of tremendous joy that Andrew is embracing the illuminated path before him and that he and his beautiful, amazing wife, Holly--who is seated in the gallery; also a native of our beloved Louisiana--are returning home, having served their country with honor here in this, the people's House. I rise, Mr. Speaker--unscripted, through only the words that the Lord has etched upon my heart--to speak in gratitude of what this man has brought to me and my family and my congressional service for nearly a decade. Andrew has been an unwavering counselor for me through some very difficult and challenging times and decisions. He has never strayed from the deepest core principles that we attempt every day to embrace as we conduct the business of our congressional service. As a man, Andrew through the years became perhaps my dearest and most trusted, most immediately available source of sound counsel. I have no doubt--good sir, good lady--that I would have failed to perform my service for we the people time and again had it not been for the quiet, calm, and steady counsel of Andrew David. I am reminded, Mr. Speaker, as I see the words that we who are honored to serve in this Chamber gaze upon every day in the stone above your podium: In God We Trust. We effort to be worthy of what it is to be His child and to serve in this, His anointed house. I am reminded this day of His words in Genesis 7:1, when the Lord said to Noah, ``Come into the ark, ye and your household.'' ``Come,'' Mr. Speaker, He said. He didn't say, ``Go into the ark.'' He said, ``Come.'' This is understood to mean that the Lord was already present there. The goodness of the Lord was present there before Noah entered that challenge of entering the ark and traversing the storm to begin anew. When I came to D.C., I had no experience, no political background. I had a clear understanding of what I thought perhaps should be a servant to we the people in the House of Representatives. When I was elected in 2016 and I came here to this august body, I did not know that the Lord had already placed His goodness. It awaited me. The Lord had prepared a counselor for me, His unworthy son. That man, that goodness, is Andrew David. We shall continue to serve. We will endeavor every day to be worthy of service to we the people in His Chamber of what it is to be children of God, the most high. I will strive to be worthy of being called David's friend and brother. I thank him for his decade of service by my side. God bless him as he embraces the illuminated path before him. I wish him luck. I know that great joy awaits him and his beautiful family in our beloved Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Maloy for yielding.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2715, the Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2715 ensures that contaminated imports, ranging from radioactive seafood to illegal Chinese vapes, do not reach American consumers and cause harm. Initially, this legislation began as an effort to target toxin-laced foreign seafood. However, my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter), and I quickly learned that the Department of Health and Human Services cannot destroy other articles, including food, devices, and specific drugs, even though they may pose serious health risks. Without the authority granted within H.R. 2715, dangerous and poisonous imports can find their way to American markets. This legislation grants the Food and Drug Administration additional authority to destroy any articles that fail initial inspection, preventing foreign importers from port-shopping or rebranding their products. This legislation introduces strict penalties for the reintroduction of destroyed items into interstate commerce, ensuring that harmful imported goods are permanently barred from entering our markets. Bad actors attempting to undermine these enforcement measures will face accountability. Strengthening this legislative framework will protect public safety and reinforce our commitment to stringent oversight of imported goods to mirror the American safety standards that American producers must live with. In January, the FDA released its legislative proposals for fiscal year 2026. This included a request for the authority to require importers to destroy any FDA-related product that is refused entry into the United States and that presents a significant public health concern. H.R. 2715 supports the administration and follows through by adding the FDA's existing authority to destroy imported medical devices and medications with any article that poses a health risk to the public. As we work to improve our Nation's health and reverse the lingering effects of unfair trade policies, it is essential that the FDA has the authority to eliminate toxic foods and drugs from our country. The Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act protects Americans' health and prioritizes our domestic industry. I urge full support and swift passage, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for allowing me to speak on behalf of an American patriot who was a man amongst men, Mr. Speaker, Rodney C. Hamilton. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6963, which would designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Lafayette, Louisiana, as the Rodney C. Hamilton Sr. VA Clinic. This legislative effort, Mr. Speaker, to honor Mr. Hamilton has been in the making for many years. I am proud and humbled to bring it to the floor on behalf of the Louisiana delegation today. Rodney C. Hamilton, Sr., joined the United States Marine Corps at 17 years old and served in the Korean war. He was wounded, served honorably, and received the Purple Heart. After serving his Nation in combat, he returned home to Lafayette where he continued to serve those around him, becoming a community leader in Lafayette's city government. He was ordained as a deacon, serving as a member of the First Baptist Church of Youngsville, Louisiana, a community near Lafayette. Mr. Hamilton was a cofounder of the Southwest Louisiana Veterans Action Coalition, serving as a longtime veterans advocate. This marine, Mr. Hamilton, played an integral role in establishing the Louisiana community-based outpatient clinic, which opened in 2016, and the road leading to the clinic was named in his honor in 2017. I am joined in support by Speaker Mike Johnson, Leader Steve Scalise, Representatives Letlow, Carter, and Fields, and Senators Kennedy and Cassidy in support of this legislation honoring Mr. Hamilton. Louisiana's American Legion, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Disabled American Veterans, and Louisianans across the State have offered their strong support to rename this clinic in honor of Mr. Hamilton. Passing H.R. 6963 will be to honor an American who did so much for our Nation, our veterans, and the people of Lafayette, Louisiana. Not only will this serve as a tribute to our beautiful Nation but would show this body's resolve to remember and honor all veterans who answered the call to serve our Nation and our communities.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise to memorialize the life of Dr. John Noble, Jr., an accomplished doctor, community leader, and friend. Dr. Noble led a remarkable career as an orthopaedic surgeon. He earned his undergraduate degree at McNeese State University and his Medical Degree from LSU Medical School in New Orleans, where he also completed his residency. Dr. Noble completed a Fellowship at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, before returning home to Southwest Louisiana. There he spent more than three decades in practice, serving countless patients and helping to develop innovative treatments for hip and knee replacements. Throughout his career, Dr. Noble was committed to advancing the concerns of other physicians and his patients. He served as the President of the Louisiana State Medical Society and the Louisiana Orthopaedic Association, organizations that advocate on current healthcare issues and policy reforms. While many knew him as a trusted physician, others knew John Noble for contributions outside of his practice. He was a longtime advocate for his alma mater, McNeese State University. Not only was he the team physician for McNeese Athletics, but he gave back to the McNeese community with his time and resources. And he represented Southwest Louisiana as a member of the University of Louisiana System Board of Supervisors. John was a civic leader, including his involvement with the Calcasieu Republican Parish Executive Committee and the Alliance for Positive Growth. He was always willing to share his expertise with others in the community, and when illness forced him to retire from his practice, he pressed on with the same dedication to service and civic engagement. My friend John Noble was indeed a gentleman of distinguished accomplishment on many levels, yet nothing surpassed his love for his family. John cherished his beautiful wife, Cinda, and I was in awe of his dedication and love for his daughter, Madeline, and his son, John Wallace. After a courageous battle with cancer, Dr. Noble has gone home to be with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Dr. Noble lived a life worth celebrating. He was a man of integrity, extraordinary talent, and distinguished accomplishment. May that legacy and the memory of his life endure. It is in that spirit that I deliver these remarks on this day. To memorialize the life of a dear friend and a great man, Dr. John Noble, Jr. May God bless Dr. Noble and his family.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it is a humbling moment for us to acknowledge that we are failed and fallen humans in the presence of God in service to our fellow man standing in the Chamber of the people's House. We have been reminded that there are 23 marble busts in relief that surround the walls of this Chamber above the gallery, one of which is facing you, Mr. Speaker, and that is Moses. There are many men are up there, George Mason, William Blackstone, Thomas Jefferson, Solomon, but only Moses faces you, Mr. Speaker. Only Moses faces the podium of the Chamber of the people's House in the land of the free. Our Founders were men anointed by God, and we are called upon to acknowledge that spiritual foundation, once again, in our country. This is an acknowledgment that crosses the barriers of politics, Mr. Speaker, and joins us as one people. Regardless of where we stand upon economic strata, regardless of our color, creed, or heritage, and despite political affiliation or party, we are bonded as one man, under God, in service to our fellow man. Yet, we struggle. We struggle to know what is right. We seek that as children of God, as men and women attempting to serve we the people. We struggle to know what is right, do we not, Mr. Speaker? Our Founders struggled, as well. America was founded by imperfect men with a perfect vision. The preamble of our Constitution says: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union--in order to form a more perfect Union. There is an old saying in the horse business: The way a horse leaves the gate is the way he is going to run. The preamble, the document that established our laws, stated that they were humble men, imperfect men. They acknowledged the fact that we are human. We have failed and fallen since Adam. We seek to understand what Paul meant when he told us in Corinthians to place not your faith in the wisdom of man but in the spirit and power of God. This is the Chamber where we carry the responsibility to merge the wisdom of man within and beneath the spirit and power of God. We all have a story, do we not, Mr. Speaker, of how our families came to be here? Many years ago, 200 years ago, a young Irishman born into indentured servitude far away heard whispers of a Nation born where a man could own the land that he worked. This was unheard of for a common Irish lad. He risked everything, all he had, left the land of his heritage, and boarded a boat that was converted from carrying commercial goods to carrying human beings. According to a letter unearthed by my mother and my aunt many, many generations later, his sleeping berth measured 2 by 2 by 5. Literally, by the way the winds blew, Mr. Speaker, that boat landed in the Port of New Orleans. That young Irishman was the beginning of my family. He came here seeking freedom. He knew that he would deliver work, ethics, principles, Christian faith, determination, and courage, but he knew he stood beneath God. He landed in a Nation that was going to give him the opportunity to build something for the next generation, and indeed he did. I ask, Mr. Speaker, are we worthy of the things that we have described tonight? All of us, on both sides of the aisle, the citizenry we serve that sit in the gallery, are we worthy of what it is to be an American citizen and a child of God? We seek to prove that worth every day, yet we fall short of the glory of God. We arise again from bended knee and struggle to be worthy of this service to our fellow man. Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying that we shan't be judged by how we fall. A man's character should not be measured by how he falls, but it should be measured by how he stands back up. As a nation, this is where we are. Our children's children will not measure us by the fact that our Nation has stumbled to the extent that it has, but this generation will be measured by how we stand back up. Let me humbly deliver this message to the American people: Stand back up in the glory of God. Remember the words of Paul, place not your faith in the wisdom of man but in the spirit and power of God. Let us stand as a Nation, as brothers and sisters, as children of God, beneath the glory of the flag that waves above us. Mr. Speaker, God bless us one and all.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am so honored just to stand in this august body in support of my friend and brother, Tim Reitz. It is bittersweet because we are going to miss him. We are going to miss him within the heart of the Freedom Caucus. His counsel, his wisdom, his humor, his guidance, and his skill set are rarely matched, I think, in the history of this body. Tim became senior counsel and staffer at the Freedom Caucus at a time years ago when the Freedom Caucus was struggling to become the relevant and powerful faction within this body that we knew it could be. Yet, history required a man named Tim Reitz to be the deep rudder of our intentions at the Freedom Caucus, which was to steer this body that we love, for this Nation that we would shed our last life's blood for, to steer it deeper into the conservative spectrum and principles that made our country great, that drive us each day. We rise from bended knee and ask our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to help us to be worthy of service to we the people. Yet, we struggle to understand the details of how to make that happen. Tim Reitz has informed our caucus in such a manner that I don't believe it would be possible, Mr. Speaker, for us to stand before you as members of the Freedom Caucus and unwaveringly know that we are one of the most powerful factions within this body standing upon conservative principles. Tim helped make that happen. I am just going to say that sometimes we have contentious and complex meetings. Mr. Speaker, Tim was the guy, especially for a regular man like me, that I could call after a meeting or send him a text and say: ``Tim, when you get a minute, will you call me and let me know what the hell just happened?'' He would do that at any time of the night or on the weekend. He would say: ``Yes, sir, Mr. Higgins. This is what just happened.'' We are going to miss you, brother, but you are going to a great spot, right around the corner. We are certainly well aligned, and God bless you in your endeavors. We have been honored to serve with you, sir.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 123.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 5103. As a proud cosponsor of H.R. 5103, I stand with Representative McGuire and my Republican colleagues to deliver on President Trump's vision for our Nation's capital. This bill codifies Executive Order 14252 and turns words into law to make Washington, D.C., safe, clean, and beautiful once again. The bill creates the bipartisan ``District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Commission,'' comprising federal law enforcement leaders from DHS, the FBI, ATF, the U.S. Marshals, and the U.S. Attorneys for D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. This commission will work directly with D.C. officials to crack down on crime, enforce federal immigration law, and support the Metropolitan Police Department. American taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize lawlessness in the seat of our government. This legislation also directs the Department of the Interior to launch a comprehensive beautification program to clean up monuments, memorials, parks, sidewalks, highways, and public spaces. Our capital should reflect American pride and history, not graffiti and decay. Both the Commission and the beautification program sunset on January 2, 2029, ensuring focused action and regular congressional oversight through required progress reports. This is targeted, time-limited leadership, not another permanent bureaucracy. As the seat of our federal government and a symbol to the world, Washington, D.C., must be safe for tourists, workers, residents, and Members of Congress alike. Crime, filth, and disrespect for our monuments undermine national morale and our global image. H.R. 5103 fixes that. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5103 today. Let's show the American people that we are delivering on law and order and restoring the beauty and dignity of our Nation's capital.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 86.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) for yielding, and I thank my colleague Mr. Raskin for the salient points that he has brought to this debate. Mr. Speaker, I also defended George Santos on this floor and opposed the means by which he was expelled. I think it was beyond the pale. A responsibility that we bear in this body is to determine the means by which our colleagues shall be reprimanded or disciplined. The Constitution is clear on this. My friend Mr. Raskin knows full well that this body controls the means by which and the rules by which the Members of Congress shall be disciplined. We have had variances of opinions regarding the exact disciplinary actions that should be embraced or rejected Member by Member. Let me say that, in this case, Ms. Plaskett's receiving text messages--this was so alarming to me. When I saw this and read it, I didn't believe it. I say to my friend, I thought perhaps it was media from a satirical site. It couldn't possibly be true because we all know that a text message, a text exchange, is rather intimate in the realm of communications. To pierce into an actual congressional hearing, for a Member of Congress to receive and respond to a text message during a hearing, that is quite familiar, is it not? This was shocking to me that a Member of Congress would be exchanging text messages directly with Jeffrey Epstein in 2019, at which time he was being prosecuted, federally, by the first Trump administration. He had received some nature of a sweetheart deal back in 2007 and avoided Federal prosecution by pleading no contest to some level of State prosecution where he was sentenced, Mr. Speaker, to 13 months. My understanding is, he did 11 months and at the easiest time that could be done. He walked every day during the day on the work-release program. That sweetheart deal, let me say, should be looked at. Now, to my horror, who has come to light that should be looked at, what was their involvement? Was there some involvement then? She is a good lady from the Virgin Islands. Where did Jeffrey Epstein live? In the Virgin Islands. He was a constituent in 2019. Was she a friend in 2007 during her service to the DOJ, which my friend has brought up? Was there any interactions? These are the questions we have. The good lady from the Virgin Islands has crossed the threshold of reasonable suspicion and, therefore, she should be investigated by Ethics, by DOJ, and I would recommend by the Oversight and Judiciary Committees. Meanwhile, she should absolutely be removed from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This, Mr. Speaker, is my position. I present it without note for the betterment of the debate of this body.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, let me just diplomatically address a couple of the accusations here regarding the nature of my bill. The gentlewoman acknowledged that there is danger involved, yes. Yes, enforcing the law is dangerous. This is why the professional law enforcement officers across the country, including here in D.C., are incredibly well vetted and trained and equipped to make decisions in a matter of seconds or less to pursue criminals and to enforce the law. It is dangerous work. It is dangerous for the officer. It can result in injury or death for the criminal. It can result in injury or death for innocent Americans, but let us never forget that the interaction was initiated by the criminal. Mr. Speaker, enforcing the law is dangerous work. What is more dangerous, Mr. Speaker, is failure to enforce the law. What is more dangerous for every community, including our Nation's Capital, for which this body has a responsibility to stand, is failure to give discretion for enforcement of law to the very law enforcement professionals that you have trained and equipped and placed on the streets. To not allow those professionals to make decisions and enforce a law, that is incredibly dangerous. My bill stands on the side of the citizenry of D.C. in an effort to enforce the law by fully empowering the police officers of D.C. to engage criminal conduct and enforce the law.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time yielded and the indulgence of the chairman. I urge strong support of H.R. 5143. It restores legitimate discretion to the police officers who actually work the streets of D.C.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee for recognizing me and allowing me to speak in support of H.R. 5143, the District of Columbia Policing Protection Act. As a matter of background, Mr. Speaker, in January 2023, the D.C. Council enacted the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, the CPJRA Act, D.C. Law 24-345, among numerous other police-related policy matters, most of which we advised against in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. We met with D.C. officials, including in hearings, and we advised against what they intended to do. Mr. Speaker, included in those police-related policy matters in the act that they, indeed, passed in 2022 was subtitle S of the CPJRA, which imposed a host of restrictions on police pursuit of criminal suspects. In doing so, the D.C. Council essentially made it illegal for police to pursue and apprehend criminals if they were fleeing in a vehicle by imposing a complex matrix of 14 factors that police officers have to consider for whether or not they would pursue a fleeing vehicle. I speak from my own experience as a police officer. I have been, very likely, the only one involved in this debate for several years who has actually engaged in high-speed chases. I tried to add it up the other day, but I probably have engaged in a couple of hundred serious high- speed pursuits in the course of my career. I worked night shift for a long time, 9 years straight, 12-hour shifts. Night shift is when this stuff usually happens. I am not talking about when someone doesn't stop right away. That is not a high-speed pursuit. Having to drive 100 miles an hour to catch up with somebody that you are pulling over is not a high-speed pursuit. A high-speed pursuit is when they are running. This is something where the officer has to make very fast decisions, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we consider the totality of circumstances of where we are: Is that a suspect vehicle? Does it match a definition of something that has been put out through dispatch of a vehicle that we are looking for? Has it potentially been involved in a crime that requires police interaction in an effort to enforce and address that crime that took place? There are a number of factors that a police officer has to figure, but it has to be an option that you can pursue that car. What D.C. has done, one of the factors, Mr. Speaker, is if anyone in the suspect motor vehicle was afforded an opportunity to comply with an order to surrender any suspected dangerous weapons. What the hell? There is no way a police officer can know that. There are too many factors, which basically means D.C. has made it illegal for police to pursue a vehicle. That is what we are correcting here. We are restoring the discretion of the professional law enforcement officer to make a decision in a fraction of a second or two based upon his policies and training and the totality of circumstances of whether or not he needs to pursue that vehicle. This is what my bill restores. The legislation repeals subtitle S of the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 and replaces it with policies empowering police to make vehicular pursuit of a suspect fleeing in a motor vehicle if the officer or supervisor deems it necessary, that it is the most effective means of apprehension, and if it is without unreasonable risk to bystanders. Let me say, in all of my vehicle pursuits, there have been a few crashes, but nobody has died. The only crash that I have ever been involved in during those pursuits was when I purposefully crashed the fleeing vehicle, which was the guy who had committed an armed robbery at a local hardware store, had pistol-whipped the manager of that store, made it to his car, and fired at officers.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Where are they now?

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me additional time to address these issues. Our sovereign border, Mr. Speaker, our southern border is 1,954 miles long. I have scouted every mile by airplane, helicopter, four-wheel drive vehicle, on horseback, and on foot. I have scouted every mile. That 1,954 miles of southern border on the American side of our border, the northern side of that border, is patrolled by some of the finest law enforcement professionals that the world has ever known. It is absolutely within the reach of those law enforcement professionals to effectively enforce our laws on American territory and American soil to the north of that 1,954-mile sovereign border. Mr. Speaker, the southern side of that sovereign border is 100 percent controlled by criminal cartels. Mr. Speaker, if we have an American Government executive authority that determines by its policy it is not going to enforce the law with a certain vigor that is required, when on the other side of the sovereign border, there very well-funded, well-armed, and organized criminal cartels, we are effectively partnering with those cartels. There is a partnership in whatever criminal activity they are engaged in. At our southern border, the criminal cartel traffic human beings and drugs into our country. In 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024, the executive branch of our government--the prior President and Secretary of Homeland Security--effectively partnered with the criminal cartels to traffic human beings and drugs into the heart of our country. The impact that we had to bear was immeasurable. It delivered generational trauma into our country. That was a policy decision and a series of expansion of that policy over the course of 4 years that led to millions upon millions upon millions of illegals coming into our country. In many cases, they themselves were victims of the lies that the former executive branch put forth into the entire cartel pipeline, deep into South American and through Central American. Rather than a law enforcement professional body, they drew these illegals into our country where they were waived in by a Federal law enforcement body transformed into a reception and processing force. The negative impact was 100 percent the result of policy. Our colleagues across the aisle told us for years, Mr. Speaker: We need more money. Why don't Republicans give more money to the Biden administration? Well, Congress should pass more laws. We said for those years: More laws are not required. Enforcement of existing law and the will to do so is what is required. More money is not required. It is the same 1,954 miles of border, the same personnel, the same roads, the same physical barriers, the same communications systems, and the same surveillance systems. In 2 weeks under the new administration, we went from 8,000 to 10,000 illegal crossings a day to almost zero because of a change in policy. The guilt and the deep accountability of every injury and every dead American, every injured family, that responsibility lies with those who develop the policy that encouraged the illegal trafficking of human beings and drugs into our country. Over 200,000 Americans are now dead. They can't vote for either party. They are dead from drugs trafficked into our country in those 4 years. They are dead from fentanyl poisoning. There are 435 of us here and 100 Members of our colleagues across campus in the Senate. There are 535 children of God, Democrat or Republican, by God, who are absolutely responsible for the decisions and laws that come out of the American Congress. Article I gives us the authority and, therefore, the responsibility to be the voice of we the people. For 4 years, that voice cried out to be heard. Enforce the law. Protect the citizens. Restore the sovereignty of our border. Now, thank God, we have. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) for allowing me to address these concerns.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Yes, sir.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my colleague and friend, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would prefer not to have to expound upon this topic. What I would prefer is that my colleagues in this body, on both sides of the aisle, embrace the very somber responsibility of encouraging and supporting the laws of our land. Yet, we find ourselves in a position as conservatives where our warnings of the past echo upon a nearly empty Chamber as we discuss the horrors of the day and the crimes that have been committed upon the citizens we are sworn to serve that need not have been committed. This is because of the culture that we have allowed to spread across our country, as my friend has spoken on, that we have allowed elected officials to embrace, that culture that has woven its way into the fabric of our country that pushes back against the prevention of crime and the enforcement of law, and sells this idea that we are somehow a less compassionate nation if we do not continually release career criminals upon the streets. There is this notion that we can somehow enforce criminal law with social vagaries; this idea that somehow if we will just be very, very nice to the criminal element, they will just stop committing crimes upon the law-abiding of our country. We have to stand against the existence of that concept, certainly in this body that is responsible for being the voice of we the people. In cases where horrors are forced upon our innocent citizens by career criminals that should have well been institutionalized or imprisoned for many, many years, we have a responsibility to speak out. I would say that it is far from compassionate, as a citizenry, to continue to release career criminals. I would offer to yourself and the country, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration, maybe my fellow citizens have to realize that the best shot that some of these guys that are in the game on the criminal side of this thing, the best shot they have at rehabilitation is jail, the very best shot. I have seen it again and again and again in my career. I have had criminals that I have taken off the street, that have lived a life just immersed in drugs and crime and alcohol and violence. And maybe for the first time in their life they were truly treated with the respect of man to man is when I arrested them and took them off the street and walked them through the booking process. I told them then that they have a potential for a better life and a better day, but their path to a brighter future comes through my jail. I advised them to take that time in that jail to reflect upon their life and the potential that they have to turn themselves around. Years later, Mr. Speaker, I have had these same guys come to me, who are now free, and say thank you. Thank you for talking to me the way you did and handling me the way you did and making me realize that my path to a better life began through jail. The fact that this horrible man should brutally stab this innocent woman, that is part of the national narrative right now. The fact that we are dealing with that horror brings us to hold accountable every judge that let him go and every prosecutor that refused to force charges upon that man, every elected official and politician that stood for cashless bail. Every member of our society that stood on the wrong side of this thing should take a deep look in the mirror. I say to my friend, Mr. Roy, who is a gentleman who supports the enforcement of law, he is a good and compassionate man, a father and husband, he is determined to serve his country, and asking our fellow man, Mr. Speaker, to hear this message: enforce existing laws, prosecute violent criminals, incarcerate those who are convicted, and maintain that incarceration until they are reformed or their sentence is complete. We say this not just for ourselves, but for the murdered, for the lost, for the forgotten, for the unseen victims of crime across our country.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, my amendment increases and decreases $50 million for the Corps of Engineers in order for me to bring attention to the failure of the Corps of Engineers to dredge a particular section of river that winds through the heart of my district. The Vermilion River, for a 17-mile stretch, is prone to flood. The Flood Control Act of 1941 established that this river should be maintained at 9-feet deep and 100-feet wide. In 1956, the Army Corps of Engineers classified the project as an operation and management project to be maintained at 9-feet deep and 100-feet wide for a 17-mile stretch of a river that runs through a density of population and has never been maintained. The river has been dredged one time in that period of time. In 1997, they dredged 1 mile. When I came into office, I focused on getting it done. The Corps said they needed money. I asked how much. They said: Well, we really need science first. We need to study it first. All right. How much do you need for studying it? I got them that, a quarter of a million. They had data done by a top IT university in the entire world with 500,000 data points. Across 17 miles of river, it was determined that dredging needed to happen, so the Corps of Engineers said: Okay, we need $50 million to accomplish this. I got them the $50 million. They have been sitting on that money, Mr. Chair, for 4 years, and we have had enough. I believe the Corps of Engineers is not in compliance with Federal law nor are they in compliance with the will of this body nor are they performing according to the funding of this body, and I intend to do something about it.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution that was previously noticed.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)1 of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to present a question of privilege to the House. The form and resolution is as follows: H. Res. 539. Censuring Representative LaMonica McIver and removing her from the Committee on Homeland Security. Whereas, on May 9, 2025, Representative McIver took part in an incident at the Delaney Hall Federal Immigration Facility located in Newark, New Jersey; Whereas Representative LaMonica McIver of New Jersey, as a result of her actions on May 9, 2025, has been charged in a three-count indictment by a Federal grand jury for assaulting, resisting, impeding, and interfering with Federal officers; Whereas Representative McIver is alleged to have challenged guidance from a Federal officer regarding access to the secure immigration detention facility; Whereas Representative McIver is alleged to have interfered with Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) officials from making an arrest of an unauthorized visitor; Whereas Representative McIver is alleged to have ``slammed her forearm into the body'' and ``restrain'' an HSI officer by ``forcibly grabbing him''; Whereas Representative McIver is alleged to have further interfered with an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Deportation Officer engaged in the performance of his official duties; Whereas body camera and other video evidence support the allegations made within the Federal indictment; Whereas such actions constitute a violation of section 111(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, relating to assaulting, resisting, impeding, and interfering with a Federal officer; Whereas clause 1 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides, ``A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.''; Whereas such actions of a Member of the House of Representatives do not reflect creditably on the House; and Whereas Representative McIver's continued service on the Committee on Homeland Security, which is charged with oversight of Federal immigration enforcement and other national security matters, would represent a significant conflict of interest: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, Section 1. Censure of Representative LaMonica McIver: Representative LaMonica McIver-- (1) is censured; (2) shall forthwith present herself in the well of the House of Representatives for the pronouncement of censure; and (3) is censured with the public reading of this resolution by the Speaker. Sec. 2. Removal from Committee on Homeland Security: The following named Member be, and is hereby, removed from the following standing committee of the House of Representatives: Committee on Homeland Security: Mrs. McIver.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House. H. Res. 539, Censuring Representative LaMonica McIver and removing her from the

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, what is it that the Democrats don't want the American people to know? It is a legitimate consideration that the citizenry from sea to shining sea should ask themselves right now. What exactly is the problem? They say again and again, oh, DHS could do this if they wanted to. They already report to us. We are saying exactly that: The special interest alien data should be reported to Congress along with the rest of the data. Why would the Democrats take a big stand? This is the former chairman of Homeland Security and current ranking member, who has been on the committee for a long time. This is a rare appearance on the House floor to push back against about this. Americans should think about this. Democrats are pushing back on this because they don't want the citizens of America to know what special interest aliens, who participated in suspicious travel patterns, came into our country illegally in 2021, '22, '23, and '24. Because you know how many are coming in in 2025? Zero are coming in. That is how many. That is because we have an executive branch that has been enforcing American law since January 20 of 2025. We, the people, demand to know what is the data of so-called special interest aliens. These are suspicious-travel-pattern, illegal immigrants coming into our country. We want to know: Where did they come from? How did they get here? Where were they before? We want to know all the data that we allegedly collected. Congress has a right to know. Why would DHS need Congress to codify their authority to give us this data? It is because of activist radical judges that stop the executive branch. Every day Americans have to read about that garbage, a radical judge stopping the elected President from performing his role as Commander in Chief and President of the United States. The executive branch needs Members of Congress to perform like my friend and colleague, Ms. Marjorie Taylor Greene, has done by presenting this law. I am a proud original cosponsor. The President needs this legislation to mitigate against the radical judges that will try to stop him from releasing through Congress to the American people the data from 2021, '22, '23, and '24 of what suspected illegal aliens came into our country that fit this category. Now, across the country and in this body, most Americans know I am very plugged into law enforcement. I get calls every day from these guys, boots on the ground across the country, including deep in Federal law enforcement, and they support this law. Don't tell me that Federal law enforcement doesn't want to do this or it is bad for the country in some way. That is smoke. That is smoke that is being put out by Democrats to protect themselves from the impact of the reveal of the truth of just what kind of people that fit this category were allowed into our country. They were waved in for 4 years. It was stopped almost immediately in January of this year. I am clearly in full support of the bill. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the bill. We are going to bring this bill to the floor, and they are going to call for a recorded vote. I am glad they will. I hope you do call for a recorded vote because I want you on the record pushing a red button. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it also.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, let's have a candid conversation if we could, sir, with my colleague across the aisle about what is happening here. Congress and America, we need to clarify for the citizens watching, Mr. Speaker, Congress has a unique authority, and therefore, responsibility for our Nation's Capital as opposed to other municipalities across the country. Why not Phoenix, New Orleans, Atlanta, et cetera? It is because they are not the Nation's Capital, that is why. It is because it is not reflected in the responsibilities that are enumerated for Congress for the District of Columbia, our Nation's Capital. With the pendular swing of majority control that we observe in our Nation, from Democratic majority to Republican majority, my Democratic colleagues feel responsible to make changes when they have the majority, as do we. When we were under Democratic majority control in recent years, since I have been in Congress, the Democrats supported and did not oppose some policy and legislative decisions at the municipal level in our Nation's Capital that we knew would injure our Nation's Capital in the realm of law enforcement. That is where we are. Republicans have majority control in the House, the Senate, and the White House, so of course we are going to respond to the threat that we face within our Nation's Capital toward law enforcement. This is my bill, and this is how simple it is: It requires the District of Columbia to comply with Federal immigration law. What is wrong with that, Mr. Speaker? My colleague stated two or three times in his opening statement that the District of Columbia does not obstruct Federal law enforcement. That is not true. America has to read between the lines. When he says they do not obstruct, it means they don't, like, physically stop ICE from executing a warrant. What he is not saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the District of Columbia does not comply with Federal immigration law enforcement warrant detainers, which is the safest, most widely accepted means by which a human being that is in the custody of one jurisdictional authority is transferred to another jurisdictional authority safely and within the parameters of the law for the benefit of the individual and the community. D.C. doesn't do that for Federal immigration detainers. If they have somebody in custody, Mr. Speaker, for whatever purposes, and that guy has a warrant for ICE, they know that there is a warrant for that man. Under normal circumstances, the custody of that individual would be transferred safely once the District of Columbia was finished with that individual. They don't do that with ICE. They subject their communities to dangerous circumstances and law enforcement to absolutely unnecessary danger. My bill just mandates that the District of Columbia is the one city that Congress has authority over, and therefore, responsibility to be involved with things like this. We shouldn't have to have this law. Why? Because the District of Columbia should be following the Federal law in the first place. We shouldn't have to bring this to the floor. We shouldn't have to engage in this debate. I shouldn't have to explain these things. However, we are going to, by God, require that our Nation's Capital comply with our Nation's Federal law. I encourage my colleagues to take a deep breath, step back and say, yes, our Nation's Capital will be subject to the very laws that this body passes. I appreciate the chairman's advocacy for my bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, due to flight delays during my travel from my home state of Louisiana, I was unable to be in attendance for votes in the evening of May 13, 2025. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 123, and NAY on Roll Call No. 124.