Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, as Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas has carried out the Biden administration's open border policy and deliberately produced the worst illegal mass migration in history. Since he took office, he has released 3 million illegal immigrants directly into the country, a population the size of the entire State of Arkansas. While the Border Patrol has been occupied changing diapers and taking names, an additional 1.7 million known got-aways have entered, as well. That is an additional illegal population the size of the State of Hawaii. The impact on our schools, hospitals, homeless shelters, working families' wages, social programs, law enforcement, national security has been catastrophic. The national security implications of 1.7 million illegal individuals about whom we know absolutely nothing are terrifying in light of the October 7 attack on Israel. Now, in response, many are demanding Mayorkas' impeachment for ``failing to maintain operational control of the border'' as Congresswoman Greene's resolution puts it. He is certainly guilty of that, and a whole lot more: maladministration, malfeasance, and neglect of duties on a truly cosmic scale, but these are not impeachable offenses. We know this because the American Founders specifically rejected these terms at the Constitutional Convention. As Madison explained, they feared that such imprecise grounds could be twisted into a weapon for political grievances and turned against the executive branch whenever Congress saw fit. This would make the President a mere minister of Congress and make his subordinates answerable to the legislative branch instead of the executive powers that are vested solely in the President. This would utterly destroy the separation of powers at the heart of our Constitution. They chose, instead, very specific and limited charges of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. True, many politicians through the centuries have tried to pervert the term ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' into a similarly vague definition, but the Founders would not have substituted one vague term for another, and thus we are left with the plain meaning of the phrase, clearly defined crimes related to the duties of the office. If Ms. Greene is successful in redefining impeachment, then the next time Democrats have the majority, we can expect this new definition be turned against the conservatives on the Supreme Court and any future Republican administration. Furthermore, there will be nobody to stop them because Republicans will have now signed off on this new and unconstitutional abuse of power. We must never allow the left to become our teachers. Theirs is a world of strictly situational ethics antithetical to our Constitution and to the rule of law. I vigorously opposed the sham impeachments of Donald Trump for exactly the same reason. Now, what is the practical effect of impeaching Mayorkas, other than assuring that Republicans will have no defense when a future Democrat majority turns this new definition against them? Even in the delusional fantasy where two-thirds of the Senate were to remove him, the same policies will remain in place as long as the Biden-Harris administration holds office. This crisis was set in motion by voters who elected them and can only be fixed by voters replacing them with a President determined to secure our border as Donald Trump did. Elections have consequences, sometimes terrible consequences, and this is one of them. The only Cabinet Secretary ever impeached was Ulysses Grant's Secretary of War for running a family bribery scheme. The House Oversight Committee is painstakingly assembling evidence that suggests the Bidens may have been doing exactly this for decades. Such a serious inquiry can only have legitimacy and credibility if the rule of law is respected and the constitutional guardrails are observed. By failing to abide by due process and constitutional constraints, Ms. Greene is tainting this serious impeachment inquiry with a shoot- from-the-hip stunt that is reckless, partisan, and manifestly unserious. In Robert Bolt's ``A Man For All Seasons,'' William Roper vows ``to cut down every law in England'' to get at the Devil. Sir Thomas More replies, ``Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's. And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake.''

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would first remind the Democrats that illegal immigration is not a human right. It is a Federal crime. Now, the national parks were set aside for the use and enjoyment of the American people, but President Biden is now expropriating these lands for the benefit of the 3 million illegal immigrants whom he has deliberately released into our country. This bill would halt that abomination, and I wholeheartedly support it. Nevertheless, the misuse of our public lands is, frankly, the least of our problems. The impact this is having on social services, our schools, our hospitals, our homeless shelters, the safety of our neighborhoods, the security of our country, and the rule of law itself has been catastrophic. Elections have consequences. The American people need to decide whether they want this to continue or whether they will replace this President with one who is determined to recover not only our Nation's lands but our Nation's sovereignty.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a time for sobriety, wisdom, and caution in this House, it is right now. If this motion carries, the House will be paralyzed. We can expect week after week of fruitless ballots while no other business can be conducted. The Democrats will revel in Republican dysfunction, and the public will rightly be repulsed. It will end when the Democrats are able to enlist a rump caucus of Republicans to join a coalition to end the impasse. This House will shift dramatically to the left and will effectively end the Republican House majority that the voters elected in 2022. This, in turn, will neutralize the only counterweight in our elected government to the woke left's control of the Senate and the White House at a time when their policies are destroying our economy and have opened our borders to invasion. There are turning points in history whose significance is only realized by the events that they unleash. This is one of those times. We are at the precipice. There are only minutes left to come to our senses and realize the grave danger our country is in at this moment. Dear God, grant us the wisdom to see it and to save our country from it.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin described the limitations of any deliberative body in his closing speech to the Constitutional Convention. He said: ``When you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected?'' We have certainly approached these limits in our deliberations in recent days, and I pause for a moment to assess where we are and where we are going. The Roman Empire fell for many reasons, but the two most prominent were that it destroyed its economy by overspending and failed to secure its borders. Clearly, these two self-inflicted calamities are converging right now upon our country, and we are fast running out of time to avert them. For this reason, House Republicans have sought, with the most slender of majorities, to reverse these policies, albeit imperfectly. A few weeks ago, we passed H.R. 2, the strongest border security bill in a century. Over the past months, our majority on the Appropriations Committee has drafted the 12 appropriations bills, which bend discretionary spending down and enact important reforms. I admit that we are inexcusably late in that process. The approach of the fiscal year, though, provided us impetus to complete this work. Last week, we began taking up and adopting appropriations bills that now comprise 70 percent of Federal discretionary spending on the eve of an impending shutdown. We have learned from experience that a government shutdown can be administered in a manner that does enormous damage to the economy and to the lives of millions of Americans. The President, if he wishes, can destroy every small business on Federal land and those adjacent to Federal land. Obama went so far as to barricade every monument and memorial, chain the gates of every acre of Federal land, and even barricade the turnouts overlooking Yosemite Valley so that people couldn't even pull over to catch a glimpse of it. Mr. Biden had made it very clear that he had intended to follow that strategy, specifically designed to create a panic and to force an immediate resolution in favor of the status quo. Accordingly, our Conference put forward a 30-day continuing resolution to avert a shutdown, while reducing nondefense discretionary spending by 8 percent and enacting the border security bill that we had previously passed. Unfortunately, 21 Republicans joined House Democrats to defeat this resolution. Now, out of time and faced with an imminent shutdown, our Conference directed the Speaker to put a 45-day continuing resolution on the floor without the previous reforms as the only way to avert a shutdown and to continue our work to complete the appropriations process. We canceled the October recess to complete this work. Yet now we are faced with the threat that a Republican will move to vacate the Republican Speaker of the House. It will only require four other Republican Members to join the Democrats to achieve this result. The immediate effect will be to paralyze the House indefinitely because no other business can be taken up until a replacement is elected, just when we are on the verge of completing the appropriations process that, in turn, will finally initiate discussions with the Senate that are vital to change the dangerous path that our country is on. I cannot conceive of a more counterproductive and self-destructive course than that. The supreme irony is that this is being initiated by self-described conservatives. Do they honestly believe that when the Democrats side with them to remove a Republican Speaker that they will then side with them to name a more conservative replacement? Of course, not. The Democrats will certainly recruit the most liberal Republicans to establish a left-of-center coalition to run the House. This is exactly what happened in California in 1994. A coalition Speaker will move the administration of the House sharply to the left and effectively end the Republican House majority that the people elected in 2022. I implore my Republican colleagues to look past their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views, and to make a wise decision when it is needed most at this critical moment in the life of our country.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have offered this amendment many times over the last 15 years because until we can cut this poster child for government waste, I despair of us ever being able to bring Federal spending under control. They call it Essential Air Service, but it is the least essential program in the entire U.S. Government. This is a direct subsidy paid to airline companies to fly empty and near-empty planes from small airports to regional hubs. This was supposed to be a temporary program to allow local communities and airports to adjust to airline deregulation in 1978, 45 years ago. Instead, it has grown to include 111 airports in a program that has doubled in cost in the last decade. I emphasize that this program has nothing to do with emergency medical evacuations. It solely subsidizes regular, scheduled, commercial service that is so seldom used that it cannot support itself. Why can't it? Because in many cases, the small airports in the program are less than an hour's drive from regional airports. Essential Air Service flights are flown out of Merced Airport near my district in the Sierra Nevada of California, yet Merced is less than an hour's drive from Fresno Airport, offering scheduled flights throughout the West. Subsidized service is available from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, just 31 miles from Harrisburg International Airport. Subsidized flights from Pueblo, Colorado, are just a 45-minute drive from Colorado Springs Airport, and on and on. There is supposed to be a $200 cap on the subsidy and a minimum of 10 passengers per day, yet 55 airports are able to waive these requirements, and they have all been granted. Per-passenger subsidies on some flights are now nearly $1,000 per passenger. By comparison, you can charter a small plane for around $150 to $200 an hour. Currently, 42 of the 111 flights subsidized are for flights of 9 people or less. These flights of 9 or less are still costing the taxpayers over $120 million in fiscal year 2023. Over the next few years, this program will cost taxpayers over a billion dollars in direct appropriations, which this amendment would cease. The program is receiving $390 million in subsidies this year. If a route cannot generate enough passengers to support its costs, the passengers themselves are telling us it is not worth the money to them. Maybe we should listen to them. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Graves promised us reforms. Well, we have been hearing those promises for the last 15 years that I have been bringing these amendments up, and they never happen. My Republican colleagues love to campaign for economies in government. Yet, when the easiest possible economy in government is presented to them, they can't bear it. I would pose this question: Why should the taxpayers of every community in America pay for the tickets for their subsidized air service when those airports are often less than an hour's drive from a regional airport? If their customers aren't willing to pay for those tickets, why should the people of our districts be required to pay for them through their taxes? It is time that Republicans kept their promises and started making the fundamental reforms that are necessary to bring spending under control before we bankrupt this government. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I opposed the original version of this resolution, not to defend Mr. Schiff's lies, but to defend the process that exposed those lies. We must never punish speech in this House, only acts. The only way to separate truth from falsehoods or wisdom from folly is free and open debate. We must never impose excessive fines that would effectively replace the constitutional two-thirds vote for expulsion with a simple majority. This new version removes the fine and focuses instead on specific acts, most particularly the abuse of his position as Intelligence Committee chairman by implying he had access to classified information that did not exist and his placement into the Congressional Record of the Steele dossier that he knew or should have known was false. I hope, however, that we will hereafter return to the principles of due process that the Democrats stripped from our precedents in the last session.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, the central architecture of the Constitution is the separation of powers. It is really just mother's rules, writ large. One slice of pie; two hungry brothers. How does mother slice the pie so both brothers are happy? Pretty simple. One slices; the other chooses. The powers given to one brother cannot be abused because of the powers given to the other. That is the brilliance of our Constitution. One brother makes law but cannot enforce it; the other brother enforces law but cannot make it. Article I is the first and longest article in the Constitution. It begins with the words: ``All legislative powers herein granted are vested in a Congress of the United States.'' When a law was to be made, the Founders wanted a great big rowdy food fight. They wanted every voice expressed through their Representatives. They wanted the decision held up to every light. They created two Houses with decidedly different perspectives so that the Congress would even argue with itself. They wanted it hard to make laws so the Nation wouldn't be smothered by them, and they wanted those who make those laws directly answerable to the people. But once made, they didn't want laws to be carried out by hundreds of squabbling prima donnas. That's why we have Article II: ``The executive powers shall be vested in a President of the United States.'' One official, independent of the Congress but also accountable to the people, was to carry out those laws; not make them, but to take care that they are ``faithfully executed.'' Then in Article III, mother, the Supreme Court, independent of both brothers, is there to resolve disputes. How different it is today. Today, executive agencies which are not elected and often act independently of the elected President, make ten times the laws that Congress makes. They then enforce the laws that they have made, and if they accuse you of violating them, you have to prove your innocence in an administrative court run by the same agency that made the law, accused you of breaking it, and which keeps the fines that it takes from you.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, while the courts give intentional scrutiny to the laws made by Congress, under the doctrine of Chevron deference, they have to give wide latitude to the acts of agencies that lack any checks and balances. Madison warned that when all of the powers of government are in the same hands, you have tyranny. Just ask anyone who has been hauled before this Kafkaesque process. This bill starts to return the law to its constitutional moorings by repealing this despotic doctrine and placing the acts of unelected administrative state under the same constitutional scrutiny as those of the elected Congress.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this bill presents a question that is fundamental to the central architecture of our Republic: Who is to make law? This has been pointed out, and the Constitution is very clear on this: ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.'' What about that passage do my friends on the other side of the aisle not understand? The Founders wanted it to be hard to make laws so that society isn't smothered by them. They wanted every voice in the land to be heard through their elected representatives and be accountable and answerable to the people. The modern regulatory state takes these powers from the people and gives them to unelected bureaucrats. An unelected agency writes the law, and then it enforces the law that it has written. If it accuses you of violating its law, you have to answer to the agency in a court run by that agency without a jury, and the agency keeps the fines that it assesses on you. Is there any more profound threat to a democracy than that? Ten times more laws are written by the regulatory agencies today than by the people's representatives. Americans now have 10 times the chance of being hauled into an administrative law court for breaking an agency regulation than they have of being charged with a statutory crime where they have the full protection of the Bill of Rights. The REINS Act starts to put this genie back in the bottle by requiring that regulatory acts that impose more than $100 million of costs to the American public must be enacted by the elected Congress. That means if you don't like that law, you can hold your elected representative directly accountable. That is what a democracy is, a government that answers to the people. Opponents of this bill tell us that we must defer to the experts. That is not a democracy. That is an oligarchy. We have just endured the folly of experts--lockdowns and mandates the experts told us would slow the spread of COVID. We now have study after study documenting that their measures not only failed to protect us but did incalculable damage to the economy and to the education of our children, and needlessly cost lives through delayed health screenings and treatments, drug and alcohol-related deaths, and increased suicide rates. No representative voted for these measures. The regulatory state simply imposed them. Experts are there to advise us from every perspective. It is then the responsibility of elected representatives on behalf of the people to sort through their perspectives and advise and chart a course that takes into account all the issues at hand and be accountable and answerable to the people for those decisions. Mr. Chair, this bill starts us back toward that democracy.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany), the author of one of the measures in this package.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lee).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), one of the leaders in our Conference in confronting this crisis.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on Inauguration Day, our border was secure. The Trump policies had slowed illegal immigration to a trickle. That afternoon, Joe Biden reversed these policies, and in the last 27 months the Democrats have deliberately admitted into our country more than 2.1 million illegal aliens. Now that is larger than the entire population of the State of Nebraska, and while the Border Patrol was overwhelmed, more than 1\1/2\ million known got-aways entered as well. That is an additional population larger than that of Hawaii. All of this occurred in 27 months. As we can see at this very moment, this was only a prelude to the mass invasion now unfolding before our eyes. The Border Patrol Union warned us yesterday: ``Field reports from agents across the southern border verify the enormity of this tidal wave of illegal aliens coming now. Huge groups are overwhelming stations, and it is completely out of control. Massive releases beginning and it's going to get much worse.'' Now for Americans, this means classrooms packed with non-English speaking students, hospitals flooded with illegals demanding uncompensated care, violent criminal cartels and gangs introduced into our communities, fentanyl killing an average of 300 Americans every day, suppressed wages for working Americans, and the collapse of the social safety net that was supposed to take care of Americans in need. For the millions of illegal migrants, it means exposure to hazardous conditions that have claimed 2,000 lives that we know of. Many arrive sick, traumatized, starved, brutalized, raped, and deeply in debt to the cartels. These are not asylum seekers. Asylum is a specific refuge for those singled out by their government for persecution because of race, religion, or political beliefs. Asylum is achieved by crossing the first international border that separates you from that government. Asylum is not an open invitation to bum-rush our borders, but the Democrats have made it precisely that. If you make a fraudulent asylum claim, you are now guaranteed to receive immediate admission into our country, you get cash, a range of free goods and services, indefinite residency, and indefinite work authorizations. Then, when your claim is ultimately rejected by a clogged court system years in the future, you will not be deported, and you only need to wait for the next amnesty. This makes a mockery of legitimate asylum, the sovereignty of our Nation, and the rule of law. Our bill removes the incentives to break our laws by reinforcing the existing requirement that forbids releasing asylum claimants into the country until their claim is resolved. This bill also returns unaccompanied minors safely home as we already do with children from Mexico or Canada, but this administration sends all other children to poorly vetted so-called sponsors in this country with little concern or follow-up over the conditions into which we have abandoned them. Many become indentured servants, slaves to the cartels and their gangs, forced into sex trafficking, labor trafficking, and drug trafficking under horrific conditions. The only way to stop this trafficking is to return these children safely home. The cartels are paid thousands of dollars to bring them to the United States, and that will stop the moment we return these children to their homes. Every Border Patrol agent I have talked to tells me that this is the only way to stop this heartbreaking tragedy. For those crossing as families, this measure keeps them together. It allows them to make their asylum claim and then to wait in Mexico or in a family residential center until their claim is heard. This measure removes the incentives for cartels to traffic children to pose as families in order to be automatically released into our country as the Democrats are doing. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Biggs, Mr. Roy, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Carter of Texas, Mr. Johnson of Louisiana, Mr. Tiffany, and Mr. Moran for their work that comprises the judiciary section of this bill and my thanks to the many Members who helped craft it into its current form. Yes, we are a nation of immigrants. We are also a nation of laws. Millions of immigrants come to our country legally every year. They obey our laws. They wait patiently. They do everything our country asks of them. Meanwhile, millions of illegal immigrants are cutting in line in front of them aided, abetted, encouraged, and rewarded by Democrat officials. It has been said that this bill has no chance in the Senate and if it did pass that it would be vetoed by the President. Well, that is a question that the American people must ultimately decide before it is too late. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), the sponsor of H.R. 2.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Moylan).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Moran), the author of one of the measures in the bill.

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