Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas and the gentlewoman from Oregon for their bipartisan support of this measure, and I want to assure the gentlewoman from Oregon that the land exchange that she had suggested in Yosemite will not happen. The Ackerson Meadow Land Interchange Act is a simple proposal to transfer administrative jurisdiction over approximately 160 acres of national forestland to Yosemite National Park, and then it would transfer approximately 170 acres of National Park System land to be a part of the Stanislaus National Forest. Senator Padilla is carrying identical legislation in the Senate. We don't agree on much, but we certainly agree on this. This legislation addresses a familiar problem in Federal land management in the Sierra Nevada, the checkerboard boundary lines that make land management disjointed and inefficient. This bill simply consolidates land jurisdictions between the National Park System and the National Forest System, without increasing the Federal footprint. At issue is Ackerson Meadow. This meadow supports livestock grazing operations that have been part of the history and economy of this region for generations. These operations are essential for brush control and fire suppression, maintaining meadow conditions, and sustaining the rural economy that depends on the productive use of these lands. Federal agencies, conservation organizations, and local ranchers have all worked together to improve the meadow while maintaining grazing opportunities. Restoration projects have improved wetland conditions, enhanced water storage, improved habitat, and supported continued public uses, including grazing. The proposed land exchange would make that cooperative approach easier by eliminating the confusion caused by split jurisdiction. Ranchers need to know where their permits apply, where infrastructure can be maintained, and who is responsible for decisions affecting their operations. The bill also protects existing rights and authorizations. It specifically provides that valid existing rights, including rights-of- way, easements, leases, licenses, and permits remain protected after the transfer. This ensures that current users, including grazing permit holders, are not unfairly disrupted by a change in administrative jurisdiction. It also appropriately maintains Federal responsibilities for hazardous substance cleanup and other obligations. This bill reflects a principle that should guide Federal land policy. Management decisions should be based on the realities of the landscape and not simply of the boundaries drawn on a map decades ago. Our national forests and parks serve many purposes. They preserve wildlife habitat, protect watersheds, provide recreation, and support rural economies. A balanced approach recognizes all of these values. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of H.R. 8454.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, when Tim Walz said that one man's socialism is another man's neighborliness, he got it completely backward. There is only one way to prosper in a capitalist society. You have to figure out what somebody else needs and get it for them better than they can get it for themselves. That might mean mowing their lawn. It might mean doing brain surgery on their child, but whatever it is, you have to help your neighbor. Socialism is the opposite. It is taking by force what one person has earned by helping others and giving it to someone who has not. If I take a dollar from Peter and give it to Paul, I have helped Paul in the amount of one dollar and I have hurt Peter by that very same amount. What I have really done is to rob both of them of one dollar's incentive of helping each other. Paul no longer needs to help Peter for his dollar and Peter no longer profits from helping Paul. Freedom requires very little force because people are free to act according to their own needs and judgment and to prosper for their own talents and labor. Socialism requires crushing government force because it must compel people to act against their own interests. In a free society, every person gets to vote every day with every dollar they spend on what the society will produce, who will produce it, and how much they are willing to pay, all voluntarily. In a socialist society, elites make those decisions for the people and then impose them on the people by force. In a free society, every transaction benefits both parties by definition. In a socialist society, every transaction benefits one party while it hurts the other. The lesson of history comes down to four words: Freedom rocks. Socialism sucks.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I think we can all agree that this is not what a budget resolution should be used for, but, unfortunately, necessity commands it. Reconciliation gives us a powerful tool to bring mandatory spending in line with revenues. Unfortunately, the exigencies that we face have left us with no choice but to use this process to assure that we can replenish our arsenals and strengthen the integrity of our elections. The minority Democrats have vowed to obstruct these necessities in the Senate at a time when we are at war with Iran and at a time when public confidence in our election process is at an all-time low. Reconciliation, which this solution sets in motion, is the only path that we can take to achieve these vital measures. I regret the circumstances that force us to employ reconciliation for this purpose, and I pray for the day when Congress fulfills its legal duty to enact a real budget resolution that sets our country back on the road to fiscal health.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, on the eve of our Nation's 250th birthday, Zohran Mamdani sat at George Washington's desk and painted a dystopian picture of America: an oligarchy based on exploitation, discrimination, nativism, and bondage. Stripping away the anti-American rhetoric, he seemed to make three general points: First, that America is so racist and xenophobic that many insist it ``belongs only to those with the right accent or the right shade of skin.'' Yet, even as he spoke these words, foreign soccer fans with every accent and skin shade flooded social media to tell of their delight at the openness, hospitality, prosperity, happiness, abundance, and big-heartedness of middle America. Indeed, America welcomes more foreign immigrants than any other country in the world, but we insist that those who come to America do so with a sincere desire to become loyal Americans, to adopt a common language, a common culture, and a common appreciation of American constitutional principles and traditions, and to raise their children to revere and appreciate this country. It is called assimilation. It is why we have immigration laws. That is the only way to build one great Nation and one great people from all the nations and people of the world. Illegal immigration destroys that process. Mamdani, like so many on the left, obstruct our immigration laws and vilify those who enforce them. Yet, if we don't enforce our immigration laws, then we have no immigration laws. Without immigration laws, we have no border. Without a border, we have no country. Is it possible Mamdani does not understand this or is this his ultimate aim? His second point is that American exceptionalism derives not from the principles of liberty proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, but, rather, that these principles can be exchanged for others, and Mr. Mamdani has one in mind--socialism. However, freedom and socialism are two antithetical and incompatible things. Our fundamental natural rights as human beings come to us either from God or from government. If from God--the right to chart our own course through life, develop our own talents, supply our own industry, and enjoy the fruit of our own labors--they are a birthright and are inalienable. If these rights come from government, then they can be extended or withdrawn at the whim of those in power. Mr. Mamdani and his friends will decide how much you may earn, where and how you can live, which groups will receive the favors of government and which will be denied them, who must live under the law and who can live above it, even the temperature that you must set your thermostat. Wherever the socialists take control, we see this fundamental change, and there is nothing exceptional about it. It is the consistent product of socialist regimes: confiscatory taxes, chronic shortages of basic necessities, rampant homelessness, rising crime, bitter racial strife, failing schools, shuttered businesses, and ultimately, fleeing families. His third point is that our founding principles create inequalities so vast that in America ``children go to sleep hungry, while the world's first trillionaire hungers for more.'' Well, no one starves in America. Indeed, the poorest Americans today are wealthier than the vast majority of mankind. Yes, in America extraordinary individuals, including legal immigrants, can achieve extraordinary success. The left loves to dehumanize them as oligarchs. Their vast fortunes were made because consumers found value in their products and freely bought them. They have provided mankind with quantum leaps in technological progress that in turn produced the jobs and goods and services that provide Americans with a prosperity and standard of living unparalleled throughout the world. As John F. Kennedy reminded us: ``A rising tide lifts all boats.'' The true oligarchs are the socialists who use the power of government to plunder the earnings of productive Americans in order to enrich themselves and their acolytes. As Winston Churchill warned: ``The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.'' Mr. Speaker, if America follows Mr. Mamdani, it will not be the first civilization to succumb to the siren song of a benevolent, all-powerful government, but every civilization that has done so has awakened one morning to discover that the benevolence is gone and that the all- powerful government remains. The American Founders feared that one day a generation might emerge that has lost the memory of freedom. Let that not be the legacy of our generation.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, a full-court press is being waged in the media to bring back Yosemite Valley's restrictive reservation system. Viral videos of crowds on Memorial Day now stoke this movement. Those complaining of crowds during peak weekends, of course, envision that they should be able to enter the park, but not all those pesky other people. Here is a helpful tip: If you don't like crowds, don't go to the beach on Memorial Day and don't go to Yosemite on Memorial Day. In a series of articles in the San Francisco Chronicle, these critics have gone so far as to advocate resurrecting the radical Yosemite General Management Plan. It would have ultimately banned all traffic from the park and required visitors to stop nearly 50 miles away, pack up the kids, the binkies, the blankies, and the backpacks, and then take a government bus more than an hour in order just to set foot in Yosemite Valley. They also favor the so-called Merced River Plan that tried and partially succeeded to eliminate many of the amenities available in the valley, including bicycle and raft rentals, horseback riding rentals, gift and snack shops, swimming pools, and iconic facilities, including the ice skating rink at Curry Village, the Art Center, and a historic stone bridge that dates back to the 1920s. These elitists now press to restore the disastrous reservation system that greatly inconvenienced park visitors throughout 2024. To them, these restrictive measures are the cure to crowds. Yet, to the public, the reservation system meant that an average of 700 cars a day, filled with families that had driven hours to enjoy a day at Yosemite, were turned away at the gates for lack of reservations. Meanwhile, inside the park, parking lots sat half empty. Hotel reservations fell thousands short, and many tourists who booked a room outside the park were refused entry at the gates for want of a coveted registration. Frustrated would-be visitors reported continuing problems trying to obtain reservations on a glitchy website. Now, this is not to say that crowding in the valley hasn't been a big problem, but the solution is better management and more capacity, not restricting access. Before the 1997 flood, there were about twice as many parking places, rooms, and campsites as there are today. Although Congress appropriated funds to restore this capacity, it never was. A succession of incompetent superintendents tolerated inefficient admissions and time-consuming transactions that often produced long lines at the gates. When gateway community representatives approached park managers for relief, their many suggestions and pleas were simply ignored. Under Yosemite's new superintendent, Ray McPadden, these deficiencies are finally being addressed. He is instituting a large number of improvements that have been advocated by the gateway communities for a decade, and he is meeting regularly with local representatives, businesses, and residents. To address gate delays, he has introduced digitized entry passes and installed WiFi to expedite admissions. To decongest the valley, he is promoting and encouraging visitors to enjoy often overlooked features, like Tuolumne Meadows, Mariposa Grove, Glacier Point, and Tenaya Lake. He is adding long-overdue additional parking and will be using real-time data this summer to relieve traffic congestion. Last weekend, the Secretary of the Interior and the superintendent met with local elected and business representatives. To a person, they opposed the reservations system and endorsed the measures now being undertaken to improve the visitor experience. The Yosemite Grant of 1864 was the first time that Federal land was set aside for the enjoyment of the American people. In the original words of the act, that was done with the promise that lands would ``be held for public use, resort, and recreation.'' This led to the creation of the National Park Service with the express purpose ``to conserve the scenery and the natural and historical objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment'' of the same. Well, the environmental left would change ``use, resort, and recreation'' to: Look, but don't touch. John Muir once wrote: The valley is filled with people, yet they do not annoy me. Not so the green left, which has tried for many years to reduce visitor services and restrict public access. The 750,000-acre national park can welcome many more visitors than it does today. All that has been lacking is a visitor-friendly attitude by Yosemite Park management and a willingness to be a good neighbor to the gateway communities and businesses that depend on tourism. With Yosemite's new management, that day has finally come.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, for 4 years, Democrats actively encouraged the largest illegal mass migration in history, including the most vicious criminals in the world. For the last year, these same Democrats have done everything they can to obstruct, impede, and even attack Federal officers who are trying to enforce our immigration laws. Without CBP and ICE enforcing our immigration laws, we have no borders, which means we have no country. That is the effect, if not the design, of the Democrats' refusal to fund these agencies. This bill breaks the Democrats' stranglehold over ICE and CBP funding. Reconciliation is specifically designed to bring mandatory spending in line with limits set by the budget resolution. Instead, we have no choice but to use it to restore the security of our Nation. We will have one more shot at reconciliation for the coming fiscal year, and it must be used to fulfill our responsibility to future generations who are already drowning in our debt.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

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. 1689.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, for 4 years, our Nation suffered the largest illegal, mass migration in history at the hands of the Democrats. The cost to our country is immense: hospitals overrun with illegals demanding care; food pantries and homeless shelters overwhelmed; classrooms packed with non-English speaking students; rampant child, sex, and labor trafficking; hundreds of thousands of Americans dead from fentanyl overdoses; suppressed wages for working families; billions in welfare costs to support this population; and, worst of all, the introduction of the most violent criminals and criminal gangs and cartels in the world into our communities. President Trump reversed these ruinous policies simply by enforcing our existing immigration laws. Illegal border crossings immediately plunged more than 95 percent. The largest illegal mass migration in history is now being followed by the largest legal deportation in history, although the Democrats are doing everything they can to obstruct it. One aspect of this deliberately engineered nightmare was the abuse of so-called temporary protected status. It proved Ronald Reagan's maxim that there is nothing more permanent on this Earth than a temporary government program. Now, as its name implies, temporary protected status is supposed to provide temporary residency to legal aliens who happened to be visiting here when a disaster in their own country temporarily prevented their safe return. The Democrats turned this temporary program into an open- ended and unconditional invitation for aliens to illegally enter our country and then remain indefinitely. Under Biden, the number of TPS beneficiaries nearly quadrupled in just 4 years as aliens illegally entered our country in order to claim this status. The Immigration and Nationality Act not only gives the President the power to extend temporary status as Biden did, it also gives the President the power to withdraw that status when it is no longer applicable or in the interests of our country, as this President has done. Barack Obama granted temporary protected status to Haitian nationals in this country when Haiti suffered an earthquake in 2010. For 16 years, this status has persisted in different iterations, including multiple designations, redesignations, and extensions. During the Trump administrations, the Department of Homeland Security has attempted to end this temporary status for Haiti, noting that allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to reside in our country indefinitely is counter to our national interests. The vast majority of these TPS beneficiaries under Biden did not enter the country legally only to find themselves stranded by unfortunate events, rather they entered our country illegally to claim such status, encouraged, aided, and abetted by the Democrats in power. Indeed, as the House Judiciary Committee documented in a report early last year, of the roughly 340,000 Haitian TPS holders, 312,000, 91 percent, came to the United States illegally. Their reward for committing this crime was a work permit and indefinite protection from deportation; and, yes, illegal entry into this country is a Federal crime. Abuses like these allowed the TPS program to balloon from roughly 410,000 when Biden took office to nearly 1.5 million aliens from 16 different countries by the day he left office. As the number of aliens with TPS skyrocketed, American communities such as Logansport, Indiana; Springfield, Illinois; and Charleroi, Pennsylvania, cried out for help. Charleroi's population of 4,000 swelled to 7,000 almost overnight as a flood of Haitian nationals took up residence. The little town was forced to spend $400,000 for English language instructors and $1 million overall just to support the influx of students. This was all taken from the resources that would otherwise have been available to their own students. Our Immigration, Integrity, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee took testimony last year from a local official there, who told us of severe strains on housing, medical care, education, emergency services, law enforcement services, and other social services. He testified to a dramatic increase in traffic collisions and citizens of this peaceful, small town now afraid to walk the streets. The Trump administration has heeded the cries of the American people. Since taking office, the President has moved to withdraw TPS status for foreign nationals whose conditions no longer warrant such status. In other cases, the Trump administration has determined that these TPS designations are simply not in our Nation's self-interest. These decisions are clearly provided for under the Immigration and Nationality Act, but today my Democratic colleagues argue that we should ignore all of this, that we should return to the Biden administration's immigration policies, starting with Haitian TPS. If this bill passes, I think we can expect TPS status to be extended to the millions more who wish to exploit our country and its taxpayers. Americans will not soon forget the image of thousands of illegal aliens from Haiti pouring across the southwest border and crowding under the bridge in Del Rio, Texas. Put simply, this bill would serve as de facto amnesty for hundreds of thousands of aliens from Haiti who illegally poured across our southern border. America does not need to relive that nightmare, and that is a choice. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman tells us that Haitian TPS recipients contribute to our society. Well, no doubt some do. Overall, though, nearly 53 percent of Haitian households are on at least one major welfare program. Let me repeat that so that it sinks in. More than half of Haitian households are on welfare. That means they are taking from our society, not contributing to it. Indeed, an exhaustive study in 2017 estimated that the average illegal immigrant costs taxpayers between $87,000 and $110,000 to support over a lifetime. That is a net drain after you account for the taxes that they pay. That is a minimum $27 billion cost to American taxpayers to maintain this population. We are told many Haitian nationals fill healthcare jobs. Well, yes, they take healthcare jobs that would otherwise be filled by Americans. If Americans aren't taking those jobs, it is because cheap, migrant labor is suppressing wages in those sectors. That is why working families lost ground under the Biden administration. As our immigration laws are enforced, wages for working families are again beginning to rise. This bill takes us a giant step backward for Americans, and that shouldn't surprise anyone who saw the Democrats' reaction on this floor when President Trump suggested that the first responsibility of this government should be to help Americans, not illegal immigrants. Mr. Speaker, I am now honored and pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman said that Haitian TPS holders all entered this country through the front door legally. That is simply untrue. Yes, about 9 percent entered legally on visas; 91 percent entered illegally. She tells us that Haiti is a dangerous place, and, therefore, our country must accept every Haitian who can illegally enter our country and then stay indefinitely. Haiti isn't the only dangerous country in the world. Do the Democrats seriously argue that this is grounds for TPS for the hundreds of millions of people around the world who live in dangerous environments? This is absurd. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gill).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman tells us that we have no choice as a matter of humaneness but to accept these refugees into our country who are fleeing danger. This is the only refuge that they have. That is simply not true. Bill Melugin of FOX News was at the border in 2021 when 15,000 Haitians bum-rushed our border. He just tweeted out his recollection of the events, and let me read them to you: ``Many of them later discarded their IDs and paperwork showing they had been living and working in South American countries for years (mostly Chile) as they prepared to make fraudulent asylum claims. Their documents were all over the ground. We collected many of them.'' They are not seeking refuge in the United States because they had already found refuge in other countries. They came here to exploit our system, an exploitation that the Democrats insist on aiding, abetting, and encouraging. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close when the gentlewoman concludes, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, the Democrats tell us that Haiti is a dangerous place, and I have news for them: Most of the world's population lives in dangerous places. Do the Democrats seriously argue that Americans are obligated to admit hundreds of millions of people living in those dangerous places into the United States and then support them? That appears to be their policy, and that certainly is what we have seen from them whenever they have taken power. It is what happens when governments become corrupt and refuse to protect innocent citizens from violent predators who roam the streets. This should come as no surprise to Americans living in blue cities where leftist DAs refuse to prosecute dangerous criminals and prefer to release dangerous, criminal illegal aliens back onto our streets rather than turn them over to ICE to be removed from our country. That is what comes when you allow hundreds of thousands of unvetted illegal aliens into our country from violent and lawless societies like Haiti. Yes, many of these people are fleeing these conditions. Many others are creating them. Why would you allow the latter into our country to create the same violence and lawlessness? That is why we have immigration laws: to separate out the good from the bad. There are good and bad in every community, but we need to keep the bad out. That is what the Democrats seek constantly to undermine. This argument not only flies in the face of common sense, but it makes a mockery of the entire temporary protected status provisions of our immigration law. The law was designed to ensure that foreign nationals legally in our country, who are prevented from returning home because of temporary conditions, could remain here until those conditions have abated. That law was never envisioned to allow aliens fleeing those conditions to seek permanent residence in America by illegally entering our country. Yet, that is precisely what the Democrats are turning this program into with this bill today. If we don't enforce our immigration laws, we have no immigration laws. If we have no immigration laws, we have no border. If we have no border, then we have no country. This bill makes a mockery of a program meant to provide temporary refuge for legal residents. This temporary status for Haitians has now gone on for 16 years. Ninety-one percent of these TPS holders are not legal visitors temporarily stranded in our country. Rather, they are illegal aliens who broke our laws specifically to benefit from TPS status. The vast majority entered illegally during the Biden era of open borders. They overwhelmed local communities. Among this population came violent criminals who we can only count as they commit heinous atrocities like the one we saw in Fort Myers just 9 days ago. When the President asked the Democrats to stand if they agreed that the first duty of the American Government is to protect the American people and not illegal aliens, not one of them stood. It shouldn't surprise us that they now bring this bill as the first step toward returning to the open-border policies of the Biden administration. America, take heed. As this debate has once again made painfully clear, if the Democrats return to power, their first order of business will be to reopen our borders and allow the illegal mass migration into this country to continue. We can expect temporary protected status to become permanent protected status for every nationality the Democrats favor on the thinnest of pretexts. They have repeatedly made their intentions clear: to continue the ruinous open-border policies of the Biden administration. I, for one, reject that bleak, lawless, impoverished, and violent future. I ask the House to reject it as well by rejecting this, the first in a long line of Democrat open-border bills. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1115, I call up the bill (H.R. 4638) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that an alien who has been convicted of harming animals used in law enforcement is inadmissible and deportable, 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 H.R. 4638.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Freddie is a 5-year-old male beagle that was found on the side of a Georgia road and adopted into the USDA's detector dog program. In August 2023, Freddie began his current job as a CBP agriculture detector dog at Dulles International Airport. He and his handler, Melissa Snyder, worked the early-morning flights arriving primarily from Central America and Africa. As of late last year, Freddie had conducted more than 590,000 searches, resulting in more than 2,000 alerts that led to more than 1,800 seizures of prohibited agricultural products and almost 2,500 different pieces of quarantined material. Mr. Speaker, it was during this important work last June when Freddie alerted to luggage on a flight from Egypt. While Agent Snyder questioned the owner, this man violently kicked Freddie with sufficient force to lift Freddie off of the ground. Freddie suffered contusions to his right forward rib area. He was taken off duty for 2 weeks to recover. It turns out that the Egyptian national was smuggling 117 pounds of meat and produce which were prohibited from entering the United States. In the same month as Freddie's attack, leftist protesters in Los Angeles physically attacked horses used by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department for crowd control during an anti-ICE riot. Horses are used extensively by Federal agencies for crowd control and also for access to remote areas along the border frequented by human and drug traffickers. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Calvert brings us this simple bill that says that if you are convicted of harming a law enforcement animal or you admit to doing so while you are a guest in our country, you will be immediately expelled and never be allowed to return. It is true that we have good laws to punish such animal cruelty, and yes, such assaults can be defined as moral turpitude to bar admission. Yet, as we have discussed before on this floor, that finding can often require Byzantine legal proceedings that eat up many years and thousands of dollars of resources, if they are pursued at all. Mr. Speaker, I know many of our Democratic colleagues support the border policies of the Biden-Harris administration, which encouraged the largest illegal mass migration in history. They allowed members of the world's most violent criminal gangs and cartels into our communities, suppressed American workers' wages, and cost taxpayers an estimated $160 billion a year to support. I know that many are now vigorously and, in some cases, violently opposing the enforcement of our immigration laws under the Trump administration. They can't change these laws, so they seek to obstruct their enforcement and attack, harass, and threaten the law enforcement officers who are upholding them. Some Democratic State and local officials have even revived the disgraced doctrine of nullification that we all thought had died with the Confederacy in order to defy Federal law. There is a deep and irreconcilable divide between our parties that only the voters ultimately can resolve, but can't we at least all agree that kicking a 5-year-old beagle at an airport should disqualify a foreign national from entering our country ever again? That is the entire two-paragraph bill, and I hope we can put aside our differences and all support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I can't blame the ranking member for wanting to talk about everything except the bill before us. I would simply remind him that this House has repeatedly voted to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. Every Republican in this House voted to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. It was the Democrats who have consistently opposed these bills and are holding them hostage in the United States Senate. Why? Because they want us to stop enforcing our immigration laws, the laws that Congress itself enacted. If they don't like these laws, they should work to change them. They are serving in the very institution that writes these laws. Instead, they block funding for the Department of Homeland Security at a particularly vulnerable time in our Nation's history, and they attack the officials who are valiantly working to enforce those laws to keep us safe. We have one Democratic Member of this House who is being prosecuted for assaulting an ICE officer, another deliberately doxed an ICE officer to a violent mob which then attacked that officer and sent him to the hospital. It shouldn't surprise us that they would oppose this bill to protect law enforcement animals. As the President observed a few weeks ago, these people really are crazy. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the author of this bill.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to stray too far from the topic, but I have to remind the gentlewoman that inflation peaked at over 9 percent under the Biden administration, specifically because of the massive spending bills that the gentlewoman supported. Every dollar that you held the day that Joe Biden took office, Mr. Speaker, was worth just 79 cents the day he left office 4 years later. This administration is bringing inflation down, and real working wages are rising once again. Now the Democrats have told us: Don't worry, this is already covered by the catchall ground for moral turpitude. However, moral turpitude is in the eye of the beholder. It often requires years of lengthy litigation. The whole purpose of this bill is to take those years of litigation, delays, and appeals and make a simple and clear statement to every guest in our country: If you are convicted of or you admit to harming a law enforcement officer, you are out of here, and you are not coming back. The act itself is defined as disqualifying for entering or staying in our country. You still have to be convicted of that act or admit to that act, so you either have your day in court with all the due process rights, or you waive those rights by admitting to the act. However, once you have done so, there is no further room for interpretation or delay. What is so hard for the Democrats to admit that a person shouldn't kick a dog and expect to remain a guest in this country? Democrats also tell us that this bill would require a conviction for harming an animal before the provisions of this law can take effect. Listen carefully, Mr. Speaker. The bill does either require a conviction or an admission of guilt. It is the admission that is something that the Democrats just accept. Let me put it to them as plainly as I can: An admission of guilt is an admission of guilt. This isn't something just blurted out in their sleep. There are already many offenses that fall under the same process, and the standards are rigorous. The alien's admission has to be explicit, unequivocal, and unqualified. The immigration judge has to find that the admission fits within the relevant statutes and that the admission is based on reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence. Nothing in this bill denies the alien due process. They can either go to trial or they can waive their right to due process by admitting guilt. The Democrats clearly aren't interested in due process. They are interested in gumming up the process so that aliens can remain in this country even after such a patently reprehensible act as kicking a 5- year-old beagle that is assisting law enforcement. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, nothing in this bill prevents a miscreant from being convicted and punished for their actions. What it does is simply removes the years of delay that can prevent the deportation of an alien after they have been fined or incarcerated if they are charged. Under Democratic sanctuary laws, I would remind us, the criminal aliens who are incarcerated, instead of being turned over to ICE for deportation, are released back on our streets. That is the whole point of these sanctuary laws. Mr. Speaker, it shocked the country when not a single Democrat would rise on the floor to affirm that the first duty of the Federal Government is to protect American citizens and not illegal aliens. It mystified us when not a single Democrat would rise on the floor to acknowledge families devastated by heinous crimes committed by illegal aliens. It shocked us when not a single Democrat would rise on the floor even to honor our war heroes or the U.S. hockey team. It should astonish us that the Democrats could oppose a simple bill that says if a guest in our country harms a law enforcement animal, like a 5-year-old beagle or a horse, they are no longer welcome here and need to leave. On reflection, I shouldn't be surprised. After all, the Democrats are strangely tolerant of protesters kicking, punching, and attacking ICE officers as they enforce the very laws that Congress has enacted. So, what is an injured dog to them as long as the perpetrator is a foreign national? What is an injured dog to them as long as they are injured enforcing laws that the Democrats don't like? This isn't just about Freddie the beagle. It is about whether we will tolerate violent predators imported into our country. If they will kick a dog in the presence of a law enforcement officer, you can be sure they will do far worse when that law enforcement officer isn't present or the victim is a defenseless girl on a subway. Do we want such people in our country? The Democrats do; the Republicans don't. A time for choosing is approaching. Until then, we will have this vote, which should be revealing as Americans consider their future. Mr. Speaker, I include the CBO cost estimate for this bill in the Record.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, Pursuant to House Resolution 1115, I call up the bill (H.R. 1958) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify that aliens who have been convicted of defrauding the United States Government or the unlawful receipt of public benefits are inadmissible and deportable, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.