Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, on May 17, the College of the Canyons Foundation will honor Marlee Lauffer with the 2025 Silver Spur Community Service Award in recognition of her longtime philanthropic work. I first met Marlee as a high school student leader in Tustin, and she was my first and only choice as chief of staff when I was elected to the California State Assembly in 1982. Somehow, she was able to clean up every mess I made in those years. She continued in that capacity until Newhall Land and Farming Company, the largest land developer in California, recognized her talents and offered her a senior position in their company when she was still in her twenties. Well, four decades later, she is still in her twenties, and her energy and devotion to the community has never been stronger. I am deeply gratified to see her honored by her community and to join in their accolades of her work. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin told of a French woman who once confided to her sister: ``I don't know how it happens, sister, but I meet with nobody but myself that is always in the right.'' He was reminding his colleagues that democracies were never designed to make perfect decisions, only the most acceptable ones to the most people. My disappointment in the Senate version before us is vast, but it has one redeeming quality: It is within reach. No, it doesn't begin to address the dangerous debt that threatens our Nation's solvency, but it does open up a process that is absolutely critical if we are going to stop a $4.5 trillion tax increase that would devastate our economy, provide the funds to secure our borders, and provide for our defense in a dangerous world. I am frustrated with the Senate numbers, but in DOGE we trust. I think we can achieve a trillion dollars of savings as a result of its work. The mass repatriation of millions of illegal aliens should save another $150 billion. Restoring the work requirement for able-bodied welfare recipients will save hundreds of billions of dollars more without touching a single service for the truly needy. The economic rebound from the regulatory and fiscal reforms and from the bilateral free trade agreements the President intends to negotiate are potentially explosive. None of these reforms are in this resolution, but all of them depend on this resolution. If anybody has a better alternative, they need to bring it to a vote in both Houses this week. Otherwise, let us take a little of Benjamin Franklin's advice, doubt a little of our own infallibility, and get on with the work we were elected to do and upon which the prosperity of our people and the future of our Nation depends.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, in order for the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that affects the entire Nation, at least five Justices of the Supreme Court must concur. Yet today, individual district court judges are asserting this authority by themselves. This is an outrageous abuse of public trust and judicial power, and it has opened a Pandora's box that threatens the fundamental constitutional order. The Congress is elected to make law, and the President is elected to enforce it. The judiciary is appointed for the sole purpose of resolving cases and controversies brought to it by individual injured parties. Traditionally, that means an injured party seeks redress through his local district court. This simple process ensures decisions are limited to the unique circumstances of the individuals involved and are restricted to cases within that district, subject to appeal first to the circuit court and ultimately to the Supreme Court. This ensures that multiple voices contribute to the development of a legal consensus before the matter reaches the Supreme Court. A single district judge seizing this authority for himself utterly short- circuits this process and does incalculable injury to our Constitution. The fact that 92 percent of the nationwide injunctions blocking President Trump have been issued by district court judges appointed by Democrats, many with long histories of political activism, gravely undermines the public's confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. I am disappointed that the Supreme Court has not set its own house in order by restoring the judicial guardrails that protect us from judge shopping, from political activism masquerading as judicial deliberation, and from the usurpation of the constitutional powers conferred upon the elected President and Congress. Four Justices have signaled their readiness to do so. Yet, without a fifth, Congress is left with no alternative but to act on its own authority. With this bill, it does.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, a well-known bureaucratic response to any attempt to reduce government spending is called the Washington Monument strategy. If anybody suggests cutting the budget, then just shut down the Washington Monument until enough tourists complain to their Congressman. We saw this strategy implemented with a vengeance during the government shutdown under Obama. All reservations at the national parks were canceled. Vendors were ordered to close, perishable deliveries were turned back, The National Mall was cordoned off, gates to the national parks were chained, and even highway turnouts with a view of Yosemite Valley were barricaded. Now, compare that to the government shutdown in the first Trump administration. Vendors remained in business, the public lands remained fully open to the public, no monuments were obstructed, no barricades were erected, and the gates to the national parks remained fully accessible. Today, opponents of President Trump's war on government waste have revived the Washington Monument strategy to maintain a bloated Federal workforce that is crushing American taxpayers. Every dollar of discretionary spending, which fully or partially funds every department within the Federal Government, is now borrowed. Instead of long-overdue streamlining, the Democrats are pushing for a tax increase that will amount to about $1,500 on a family earning just $75,000. At Yosemite National Park, in my district, disgruntled employees hung a giant American flag upside-down on El Capitan the other day, ruining the view for tourists who came to enjoy Yosemite's famous firefall. Remote cameras at the park are now blocked by protest signs. A Yosemite biologist told gullible reporters that the staff cuts would doom the Sierra Nevada red fox to extinction. Others warned that layoffs would result in visitors stuck in restrooms and fires raging out of control. This is human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria, as a ``Ghostbusters'' character once put it. What is the actual number of layoffs at Yosemite National Park that will bring the beautiful valley to rack and ruin? Mr. Speaker, 10, the number is 10 probationary employees, 10 out of nearly 500 full-time winter employees, 25 if you include early retirements and no firefighters. This begs some important questions: Is the park so poorly managed that only one employee has keys to the restrooms serving the 748,000- acre national park? Apparently. How will the Sierra Nevada red fox survive with only eight remaining biologists at Yosemite looking out for it rather than nine? I guess we will just have to find out. How many of Yosemite's employees are working from home? We don't know because the park management won't tell us. We do know that 34 percent of National Park Service employees across the country were still working from home in 2023. Need to find the nearest unlocked restroom? Just email them. Indeed, the employees who provide most of the visitor amenities, such as the hotels, shops, and restaurants, don't even work for the Park Service. They work for the park's private concessionaire. It is true that hiring seasonal employees was delayed for a few weeks when the administration put a temporary hold on new hires, but that hold was soon lifted. These positions will actually increase by about 50. More than a decade ago, when I first met with park management, I noticed a placard in the conference room. It read: Is it good for the park? I suggested that was the wrong question. The right question is: Is it good for the park's visitors? It is a matter of attitude. The Yosemite Grant Act of 1864 was the first time that land was set aside for the use, resort, and recreation of the American people. It says nothing about the park's employees. They work for the people, who, in turn, have selected Donald Trump to exercise the executive powers of the government and charged him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He can't do that if he can't open the books, look at where the money is spent, and determine whether it is being spent efficiently and in accordance with the law or stop it when it isn't. The antics of some of Yosemite's employees dishonor the silent majority at the park, who are genuinely devoted to public service. As Hamilton said: ``Here, sir, the people govern.'' All 2.4 million employees in the Federal workforce exercise powers delegated by the President through our Constitution by virtue of his election. Any Federal employee who doesn't respect the authority of the people and the President they elected has no business working for them.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Green deliberately disrupted Congress' proceedings during a joint session yesterday. This was an affront to the Constitution, which commands that the President report to the Congress from time to time. It was an insult to the Presidency, and it was a disgrace to this body. It was perpetrated not by some lunatic wearing buffalo horns but, rather, by an elected Member of the United States Congress. This is worthy of the harshest sanctions that we can apply. Mr. Speaker, many Members repeatedly interrupted this Presidential address with catcalls and insults and other gestures of disrespect. A Member once did this to President Obama. He apologized, and he was reprimanded. I didn't hear an apology from Mr. Green right now. What I heard was deliberate, calculated defiance. The whole reason for this building to exist and the whole reason for this House Chamber is to exchange our views, sometimes very sharply different views, and talk out the differences among us. In order for that to work, that discussion has to be accompanied by civility and decorum. Accordingly, our rules insist on that. I believe that all of those who breach these rules need to be held accountable, lest this event become just another sad milestone in the denigration of this institution.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, our country has just suffered the largest illegal mass migration in history. Over 4 years, the Democrats opened our borders and allowed an unvetted and largely impoverished population of nearly 8 million to illegally enter our country--a population the size of Washington State. This illegal mass migration has overwhelmed our public schools, public hospitals, homeless shelters, food banks, and law enforcement, and it is costing American taxpayers $160 billion a year to support. Worst of all, it has introduced into our country the most violent criminal gangs and offenders on the planet. It has also brought to a head the fundamental question of whether any person in the world can break into our country, have a baby at taxpayer expense, have that baby declared an American citizen, and then use that as a pretext to remain. Now, President Trump has issued an executive order challenging that notion for all future births. The Democrats call this a threat to democracy and a constitutional crisis. That is what they call anything they disagree with these days, but it is neither. It is the Constitution functioning as it should. The President has created a dispute arising from a difference of opinion in interpreting the Constitution. Opponents in this dispute have appealed to the courts, as they should. Now, the courts will resolve this dispute under the terms of our Constitution. Meanwhile, I have a question for the Democrats: If the 14th Amendment actually confers automatic citizenship to anyone born here, wouldn't it have said all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States? That is simple enough. That is not what it says. It says: ``All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'' What does that mean? We know that it means the children of former slaves are citizens. That is its stated purpose and the plain language of the amendment passed, by the way, over the objections of the Democratic Party. We know from the congressional debate that its authors understood it to exclude foreign nationals who are merely passing through the country. The question of our time is whether those who have illegally entered our country in defiance of our laws and who are subject to deportation under those laws can be considered as having accepted the jurisdiction of the laws that their very presence defies. The Supreme Court has never considered this question. The closest it came was the Ark decision 127 years ago, but that applied to legal immigrants who had accepted the jurisdiction of the United States by obeying its immigration laws and who had taken up legal, permanent residence subject to a treaty ratified by the Senate. Does the President have the authority by executive order to clear up this matter as part of his organic constitutional responsibility to take care that the laws be faithfully executed? I don't know. Obama claimed the authority to create a legal residency for DACA beneficiaries out of thin air, so maybe he does. The Court will ultimately rule. Does the Congress have the authority to clear up this matter by statute? Only if that statute doesn't contradict the Constitution. Here is the fine point of the matter: If the 14th Amendment does not give automatic birthright citizenship to the children of those here illegally and temporarily, then no law should be necessary to deny them citizenship in the future because no law ever extended that right in the first place. In that case, the President's executive order is merely declaratory of existing law. Several lower courts have stayed the President's executive order, and no one is screaming that is a constitutional crisis, even though many of us strenuously disagree with those judges just as strenuously as the left disagrees with the President. Ultimately, though, we have faith in our Constitution, and as the case progresses through the courts, we will get a clear and authoritative ruling that will then determine whether the President's order stands or whether Congress needs to act either by statute or constitutional amendment. To call this a constitutional crisis is the kind of absurd and juvenile hyperbole that passes for argument these days by the woke left. I look forward to returning to a society someday when we can have civil discussions over high principles as our Founders envisioned.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this resolution not only saves an average family about $16,000 over the next 10 years through reduced spending, it also prevents a crushing $1,500 annual tax hike on a struggling family earning just $75,000 a year. I have news for the minority leader: That ain't rich. They can't afford it, and they don't deserve it. The details will come in the reconciliation bill which can't be drafted until this resolution passes, so our Democratic colleagues ought to wait to see what the committees actually propose before setting their hair on fire. The people didn't save our country last November. They gave us the tools to save it. It is now up to us to use them. This resolution unlocks a powerful tool, and it is a critical step to stop the reckless theft of the earnings, the productivity, the prosperity, and the dreams of the American people.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 5, I call up the bill (H.R. 35) to impose criminal and immigration penalties for intentionally fleeing a pursuing Federal officer while operating a motor vehicle, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 35.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, one of the great tragedies that came of the Democrats' 4 years of open-border policies was the number of fatalities of American citizens and law enforcement officers that were caused by high-speed chases of human and drug smugglers and illegal aliens who poured across our southern border. The Democrats' open-border policies incentivized and encouraged these tragedies by creating the conditions that made these deadly high-speed chases commonplace. Just last year, Border Patrol agents in Eagle Pass told us that in the Del Rio sector alone, the cartels were making $32 million every week from human smuggling. That is just one sector of the southwest border. These policies created an enormous incentive that emboldened criminals and cartels and human smugglers and illegal aliens alike. High-speed chases with smugglers occurred almost daily in these border communities, placing both law enforcement officials and innocent Americans in grave danger. For example, last year, criminals led the Texas Department of Public Safety officers on a high-speed chase outside of Del Rio as they attempted to smuggle half a dozen illegal aliens into the interior of our country. At least one of the smugglers himself was a foreign national from Nicaragua. Amazingly, the Biden-Harris administration rewarded this criminal alien with a work authorization. These criminals also smuggle deadly drugs, like fentanyl, which has poisoned thousands of Americans. Roughly 1 month ago, in California, a high-speed chase ensued after two men had their car referred for secondary inspection at a port of entry. Border Patrol officers ultimately stopped the men and recovered nearly 5 pounds of fentanyl. That is enough to kill more than 100,000 Americans. At the beginning of the last Congress, Cochise County, Arizona, Sheriff Mark Dannels, a 38-year veteran of law enforcement, testified before the House Judiciary Committee. Sheriff Dannels told us about a woman named ``Wanda'' from his county who was killed while driving to her own 65th birthday party by an individual who was evading law enforcement while smuggling illegal aliens. She had hoped to enjoy some time at the party with her son, who was receiving treatment for stage IV cancer. According to Sheriff Dannels, the criminal who caused the crash was smuggling illegal aliens when he fled from law enforcement officers, blew through a red light, and crashed into Wanda's car, cutting it in half and instantly killing her. These dangerous car crashes kill our law enforcement heroes, as well. On December 7, 2022, Border Patrol Officer Raul Humberto Gonzalez got up, got dressed, and he left for work. His family would never see him again. He was killed later that day in Mission, Texas, doing his job trying to protect our country. A group of illegal aliens led him on a high-speed chase that ended in a fatal wreck that took his life. Authorities do not have the tools to fully prosecute and punish these criminals. Currently the failure to yield to a Border Patrol agent or any other law enforcement officer assisting Border Patrol is not explicitly criminalized under Federal law. At the same time, there are no specific immigration consequences for foreign nationals, including illegal aliens, who intentionally evade the Border Patrol. In other words, criminals and foreign nationals have little incentive not to evade them. On November 5, the American people sent a strong message to the world: There is only one pathway into the United States, and that is to obey our laws. This bill sends a message that we will no longer tolerate those who evade our law enforcement officers who are upholding those laws. H.R. 35 is named in honor and in memory of Agent Gonzalez. It ensures that those who endanger border communities and law enforcement officers by failing to yield to Border Patrol agents will face meaningful consequences, ensuring these illegal aliens can be prosecuted and will be ineligible for immigration relief under our laws. This legislation also provides escalating criminal penalties if the evasion results in serious bodily injury or death to another person. Last session, this bill passed on a bipartisan basis, although 154 of our Democratic colleagues opposed this commonsense measure. Taking their cue, Senate Democrats refused to take it up last year. That is inexplicable to me. I don't understand that. I hope that today, after Democrats have had time to reflect on the matter, especially in light of the decisive verdict of the American people last November, that more of our Democratic colleagues will have seen the light and will join us in protecting the American people from these dangerous criminals and cartels and human smugglers. Mr. Speaker, I thank Arizona Representative Juan Ciscomani for his leadership on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my friend argues that this bill is unnecessary because aliens who are convicted of fleeing an immigration checkpoint are already removable. That part is correct, but there are no corresponding grounds for inadmissibility. This bill fixes that omission. It also expands the law to someone who is deliberately fleeing the Border Patrol not only from a checkpoint but from anywhere within 100 miles of the border. This begs the larger question: If, as the Democrats say, this bill simply restates the existing law, then why are they opposing it? They say you should prove that the alien knows that they are evading the Border Patrol when they initiate a high-speed chase through a crowded neighborhood. He forgets that there are many, many acts that are themselves deadly and dangerous that we sanction. Drunk driving is such an offense. It doesn't matter if you intended to kill somebody when you got behind that wheel drunk. The behavior itself is deadly and dangerous and punishable under law. Leading a high-speed chase through a crowded highway is also such an inherently dangerous act, which my friends on the other side of the aisle, for some inexplicable reason, want to excuse. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Democrats even listen to themselves. The gentlewoman just told us that this bill is simply duplicative of existing law and, therefore, a farce. A moment later, the gentlewoman told us that it is a dangerous expansion of existing law. I ask them to pick at least one side or the other and stick to it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. De La Cruz).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Ciscomani), the author of this measure.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I assure the gentlewoman that the innocent victims of these high-speed chases come from all races and all backgrounds. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I first am tempted to address my friend's obsession with Elon Musk. The situation is pretty simple: A new boss takes over and he brings in an auditor. The auditor calls in the Democrats and says, I would like to see your expense account receipts, and the Democrats go absolutely berserk. Now, what does that tell you about what has been going on with our money all this time? My experience has been that the most closely guarded secrets of government are not those that are marked ``top secret,'' they are the secrets that are embarrassing. Elon Musk is embarrassing the Democrats, which is why they have unleashed this torrent of invective, vitriol, and character assassination upon him, and why they have spent so much time today obsessing on Elon Musk rather than the bill before us to protect the victims of illegal immigration that they themselves unleashed upon our country. Mr. Speaker, Scott Jennings of CNN recently wondered aloud: What possesses the Democrats to constantly take the 20 percent side of every major issue, whether it is waste in government, men competing in girls' sports, crime and homelessness, or, in this case, border security? They seem instinctively to reject a commonsense position expressed by 80 percent or more of the electorate and double down on the 20 percent or less position taken only by the lunatic fringe of the radical left, and they are doing that again today. High-speed chases due to human and drug smuggling at the border have claimed the lives of far too many Americans, including a Border Patrol agent who was simply trying to protect his local community. This bill, named in his memory, makes it a Federal crime to evade the Border Patrol or local law enforcement acting in support of the Border Patrol within 100 miles of the international border. If you are a foreign national, it makes a conviction or admission of such a crime grounds for inadmissibility and removability. If you endanger our local law enforcement officers or innocent bystanders by initiating a high-speed chase, we will throw you in prison for a long time. Then, we will send you packing when you get out. I suspect this bill has the support of well over 80 percent of the American people, yet once again, the Democrats oppose it. I suspect most will vote against it, as they did last year. The American people have seen this unfold in this Chamber time and time again. They clearly understand what is at stake, and they well understand the implications to the sovereignty of our country and to the safety of our communities. Last November, they gave us the votes to pass this legislation, and they gave us a President who will sign it. Let's get on with it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, hell hath no fury like the deep state scorned. That has become obvious from the over-the-top hysterics directed against Elon Musk as he turns over bureaucratic rocks and shines a light on what has been going on beneath them. What he has already exposed should infuriate and alarm every American. Millions of taxpayer dollars are covertly used to support a tax on the Democrats' political opponents, millions more to support far-left causes in this and other countries, millions of dollars that were supposed to defend Ukraine and that instead vanished into the pockets of Ukrainian businessmen, millions more to fund the Wuhan lab that unleashed COVID on the world, $15 million spent on condoms for the Taliban, millions more to support illegal aliens entering our country, and still millions more on promoting leftist gender ideology around the world. America is on the verge of bankruptcy, yet the elites within our government have no conscience at all as they hollow out the earnings of working Americans to fund their pet ideological causes. Instead of hanging their heads in shame, the Democrats actively defend this waste. Congress never voted to spend money in this manner. Unelected bureaucrats within the sprawling Federal labyrinth did this behind the backs not only of the American people but of their elected Representatives. They say the most closely guarded State secrets are not those marked ``top secret'' but those considered embarrassing. By exposing this outrageous waste, Mr. Musk has embarrassed the Democrats, which is why they tried to bar him from opening the books for the American people to see. Now that those embarrassing secrets are being revealed, the left has reverted to its tired old habits of personal attacks and character assassination. The new boss hires an accountant. The accountant says: Joe, let's see the expense account records. Suddenly, it is a threat to democracy and a constitutional crisis. A threat to democracy? That is somewhat ironic from a party that just threw out a year's worth of primary elections when they didn't like the candidate that their own voters selected. It turned out their voters didn't like their unelected nominee either, and Americans instead elected Donald Trump as President with an overwhelming majority. To my Democratic colleagues, that is what is called democracy. The Democrats shout constitutional crisis. Do they not understand, that under our Constitution, executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States? All executive power flows from the President to his subordinates and advisers. That includes Elon Musk, as well as every bureaucrat at USAID. Under our Constitution, there is no executive power that is independent of the President. The difference is that Elon Musk is carrying out the policies that the people elected this government to pursue and the bureaucrats at USAID are not. That is a big problem in a democracy. The Democrats tell us that it is undemocratic for the democratically elected President to question how the unelected bureaucracy is executing the laws, laws that the President is elected to uphold. How can a President faithfully execute the laws if he and his deputies cannot see clearly and accurately where the public money is going, verify that it is being spent in accordance with the law, and put a stop to it when it is not? The true threat to democracy is an entrenched ruling class that operates entirely outside the control of the duly elected representatives of the people. Once that takes root, elections become meaningless because the people's decisions at the ballot box are no longer executed by their government. The Federal bureaucracy increasingly acts independently and often in defiance of the people's choices. That was the story of the first Trump Presidency. It must not be the story of the second or of any future Presidency because it is the very definition of a tyranny, a government operating outside the control of the people. That is what the Democrats are now advocating. In his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln noted the great task remaining before us. He offered a prayer, really, ``that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the Earth.'' That remains the great question and the great challenge of our generation. It is a destiny that we must fulfill.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I have been very fortunate, as have the people of my congressional district in the Gold Country of California, to have had guiding my office and shaping my decisions for many years now a truly exceptional individual, Rocky Deal. Rocky is going to retire at the end of this month to take on a long list of pent-up retirement and family projects, and I will miss his assistance and advice greatly. His 15 years of service leading my congressional office was actually the second chapter of his service to our country. His first chapter was 28 years of distinguished service in the United States Navy. In those nearly three decades, he rose to the rank of captain, and for 2\1/2\ years commanded what Ronald Reagan called America's flagship, the aircraft carrier USS Constellation. This culminated an eventful career in the Navy and naval aviation, including command of the USS Kalamazoo and command of the legendary Jolly Rogers squadron of F-14 Tomcats off of the USS Abraham Lincoln. During his command of the Jolly Rogers, the squadron earned the Battle E as the best fighter squadron in the Atlantic fleet. While he commanded the USS Kalamazoo in two Gulf deployments, it was rated the best logistical squadron in the Atlantic. During his command of the USS Constellation, it won more Battle Es than any other Pacific fleet carrier during the Gulf and Indo-Pacific deployments. He concluded his career in the Navy as chief of staff to the commander of the Pacific Naval Air Forces responsible for 6 aircraft carriers, 2,000 aircraft, and 40,000 sailors. After retiring from the Navy, Rocky returned to his hometown of Susanville, California, where he took over the family automobile dealership, first established there in 1929. He served on the board of trustees of Lassen College, where he also taught history, and he served on the board of directors of Lassen Hospital. He also served in a wide range of civic organizations, including Rotary International, Boy Scouts of America, the chamber of commerce, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I first met Rocky campaigning for Congress in 2008 and was very fortunate to have him join my office the next year as district director and then chief of staff. I, my staff, my constituents, and especially our country are all extremely fortunate to have had the benefit of his good judgment, calming influence, team-building leadership, and above all, an innate ability to soothe ruffled feathers, an art that is often in very high demand in my office. Despite my best efforts over the years, he has managed to maintain good relations with our local officials, district leaders, and a diverse range of constituents. John Boehner once told me that a good chief of staff allows a Congressman to be a Congressman, and Rocky has been successful at that throughout this decade and a half. The progress we have made on forest management in this district that spans the western slope of the Sierra is in large part due to his constant interaction with local and Federal officials and his total devotion to the businesses of our gateway communities around Yosemite. He cares deeply about the health and safety of the people of these mountain communities, about the struggles of local businesses, the welfare of his fellow veterans, the governance of our great Nation, and the principles of liberty that he has served in the United States Navy and the United States Congress. He has trained a first-rate team that will carry on as he leaves congressional service to enjoy time with his wife of 51 years, Gail, his three grown children, and his eight grandchildren. Our entire team will miss him greatly and miss the wisdom as we bid him, as Lincoln put it, an affectionate farewell. Mr. Speaker, on my behalf and that of a grateful constituency and a grateful Nation, I thank Rocky Deal.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, over the last 10 years, we have lost fully one-quarter of our Federal forests to catastrophic fire. An untended forest is no different from an untended garden. It will grow and grow until it chokes itself to death, and then it will succumb to disease, pestilence, drought, and ultimately catastrophic fire. This is how nature gardens. She doesn't care that it takes a century or more for a forest to regrow. We mortals do. Excess timber will come out of the forest in only two ways. Either we will carry it out, or nature will burn it out. That is why we created the Forest Service, to do our own gardening and remove excess timber before it can choke off the forest. Every year, foresters would mark off surplus timber, and we would auction it off to logging companies who paid us to remove it. For a century, we enjoyed healthy, fire-resistant and resilient forests. However, then we passed bureaucratic laws which have made the active management of our forests all but impossible. A simple forest management plan now takes an average of 5.3 years to complete, and it costs millions of dollars, more than the value of the timber to be harvested. Since these laws were passed, timber harvested from Federal lands in California has fallen 75 percent with a concomitant increase in acreage destroyed by fire. My friend, Mr. Huffman, is concerned about climate change and carbon dioxide. He should know that a UCLA study revealed that just the 2020 fires in California alone released twice as much carbon dioxide as had been prevented by 17 years of the restrictions and regulations that California has imposed, costing its consumers and taxpayers billions of dollars. Now, we were able to get a categorical exclusion from NEPA for forest thinning projects in the Lake Tahoe Basin in 2016. In the 9 years since its enactment, it has reduced the approval process for forest thinning projects at Tahoe from 5 years to less than 4 months. It has reduced the environmental reports from more than 800 pages down to a few dozen. Timber harvested has increased from roughly 1 million board feet a year to 9 million board feet a year. The treated acreage has tripled, and the Tahoe forests are returning to fire resiliency. This is what saved the city of South Lake Tahoe from the Caldor fire 2 years ago. The town of Grizzly Flats, which was not protected by this law, was wiped out by the same fire. I have been trying for years to expand these proven reforms to the rest of the National Forest System through the Proven Forest Management Act. That measure is now included in this legislation, and its enactment is long overdue. This should not be a partisan issue. The choice is between policies that have proven to work and policies that have proven to fail. Let us return to the policies that work before we run out of forests to burn down.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 53, I call up the bill (S. 5) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to take into custody aliens who have been charged in the United States with theft, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 5.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 5 bears the name of Laken Riley, murdered by one of the 8 million illegal aliens that Joe Biden and his Democratic supporters deliberately allowed into our country over these last 4 years. In Laken's case, the murderer was paroled into this country through a shocking abuse of that power. He was repeatedly arrested for theft and other crimes in sanctuary jurisdictions and each time released back onto our streets. Just months before he murdered Laken, he was arrested for theft, but ICE couldn't take him into custody because of the Biden- Harris administration's policies that shielded such monsters from arrest and deportation. This measure, first introduced by Representative Mike Collins, would require ICE detention for illegal aliens who are charged with, arrested for, or convicted of any burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting offense. The Democrats have argued that the mere accusation of committing a crime should not be grounds for detention and that shoplifting is no big deal. They ignore the fact that every illegal alien is currently required to be detained by current law throughout the pendency of their asylum claims. The Democrats have thumbed their noses at this law for the past 4 years. Their excuse is that they were prioritizing detaining more dangerous offenders. This bill does exactly that, yet they still oppose it. During his first term, President Trump proved that the President, on his own authority, can secure our borders. President Biden proved that a President who is determined to make a mockery of our immigration laws can willfully open our borders to the most violent criminals, terrorists, gangs, and cartels on this planet and then use the Democrats' sanctuary laws to protect them. This national nightmare ended at noon on Monday, but what of future Presidents? This bill ensures that what happened to Laken Riley cannot happen again should another Joe Biden disgrace the Presidency. Our Senate colleagues have added to the Laken Riley Act parts of Sarah's Law, introduced by Representative Randy Feenstra and Senator Joni Ernst, to mandate detention for illegal aliens who commit any offense that involves death or serious bodily injury. Sarah's Law was named after Sarah Root. On January 31, 2016, as Sarah drove home after celebrating her college graduation, an illegal alien, who was street racing while drunk, slammed into her SUV, snapping Sarah's spine and fracturing her skull. Sarah died 4 days later, on February 4. Within hours of her death, a judge set the illegal's bond at $50,000 because no detainer was filed despite a desperate request by local police to do so. The administration defended this dereliction of duty because the illegal alien had not been convicted of a criminal charge and, therefore, was not an ``enforcement priority.'' S. 5 closes this loophole by requiring detention for illegal aliens, like Sarah Root's killer, who are arrested for, charged with, admitted to, or convicted of any crime that resulted in someone's death or serious bodily injury. In addition, this bill includes elements of Representative Jeff Van Drew's Detain and Deport Illegal Aliens Who Assault Cops Act, which passed the House last year and applies the same mandate for those who assault law enforcement officials. This bill would also allow States to bring a civil action against derelict Federal officers who refuse to enforce immigration law. This was first introduced by Representatives Dan Bishop and Chip Roy in the SUE for Immigration Enforcement Act. That bill also passed the House twice as part of the Laken Riley Act. That bill was also killed by Senate Democrats last year. Whether it is sober reflection or perhaps the sobering results of the November election, a handful of Democrats in both the House and the Senate have now come over to support this law. We welcome them. We wish them well in convincing the majority of their party that they need to change course, if not for the good of our country, then at least for the good of themselves. We will take their support any way we can get it. I have every confidence that President Trump will end this scourge upon our Nation during the next 4 years. This law, and the others that will follow it, will ensure that no future President will be able to unleash upon our country what Joe Biden and his Democratic supporters did. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.