Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the President hasn't mentioned Afghanistan since he turned the phased, conditional withdrawal under Trump into an unconditional surrender to the Taliban. Nor has he yet found the time to see, much less admit, the chaos that his policies have produced by collapsing our southern border. Yet, putting these things out of sight and mind doesn't change the dangers they have unleashed. I am afraid that together, they pose a terrifying prospect for our country that Americans should prepare themselves to face in coming days. Trump's phased withdrawal included keeping Bagram Air Base. This strategic American asset ensured that U.S. airpower could be projected throughout the region as both a bulwark to support the Afghan defense forces and a deterrent to the extremist regimes throughout the Middle East. In addition, Bagram included the Parwan Detention Facility that held, under Afghan control, between 5,000 and 7,000 hardened terrorists. Instead, Mr. Biden ordered--and his woke generals executed--a surprise abandonment of Bagram in the dead of night without even notifying our allies. It took the Afghan Government by complete surprise and set off a shockwave that resulted in the rapid collapse of Afghan forces. In turn, this meant not only the loss of billions of dollars of U.S. military equipment to the very forces that attacked us on 9/11, but also the release of the most dangerous terrorists in the world. Now, we know where one of those terrorists went. Ten days later, Abdul Rehman detonated a bomb at the airport in Kabul, killing 13 of our servicemen and -women, including a constituent of mine, Sergeant Nicole Gee of Roseville, California. That is what one of them did. We still don't know where the thousands of other terrorists released from Bagram are or the plans they are pursuing. I think it is a very good bet that more than a few of them are making their way right now to our open southern border. We know the Border Patrol has intercepted a number of known terrorists already. The Government of Panama told Congressman Gonzales from Texas that it intercepted 52 known terrorists with intent to make their way into the United States and tried in vain to warn the Biden administration. What we don't know is how many have already infiltrated our country among the tens of thousands admitted by the Biden administration since the surrender of Bagram. We don't know how many more are among the gotaways who escaped the Border Patrol while it has been overwhelmed processing the masses who responded to Biden's open border invitation. Nor do we know how many radicalized Taliban or ISIS-K are among the nearly 100,000 evacuees being admitted into the United States from Afghanistan. The Homeland Security Secretary, Mr. Mayorkas, informed us that it is not necessary for them to show that they assisted U.S. forces, but only that we don't know of any hostile actions that they have committed. In other words, if we don't know who they are or what they plan, that is sufficient for permanent residence in the United States. Americans should brace themselves for what is surely coming. If these terrorists, unleashed because of the President's policy in Afghanistan, are able to make their way into our country because of the President's immigration policy, I am afraid that the price paid by innocent Americans will be horrendous. The mass bombings we read about in other countries may soon arrive on our shores, and if they do, the responsibility will rest squarely with the President, his administration, and his apologists in both public office and the press. On October 14, I requested Mr. Mayorkas to provide the number of foreign nationals encountered on our southern border by nationality, the number that were in the Terrorist Screening Database, and whether any were imprisoned at Bagram Air Base. As of this date, we have received no response. Mr. President, wake up. This terror is coming. For all we know, it is already on its way. For all we know, it is already here. For God's sake, secure our border, start enforcing our immigration laws, fully vet any asylum claims or refugees before they are admitted into our country. Or else, be prepared to bear the full condemnation of history for the terrors you will have set in motion against your country and your countrymen, betraying the highest trust in the land.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we learned that this year has broken all historical records for illegal immigration. The CBP arrested 1.7 million foreign nationals illegally crossing our border this year. That is the entire population of the States of Alaska, Wyoming, and Vermont combined. And it is a Federal crime. It is a misdemeanor for the first offense. It is a felony for reentry. Yet, this administration is not only not prosecuting this crime; it is actively assisting and encouraging it. Today, the Attorney General, the official responsible for prosecuting Federal crimes, could not even give us a ballpark guess of how many are actually being prosecuted, and, I suspect, because that number is zero. He couldn't tell us what is being done to enforce the Federal law that forbids hiring illegals. He wasn't aware of President Biden's inauguration day order to Immigration and Customs Enforcement not to faithfully execute the law. Now, I ask you, is it just possible that the administration's refusal to enforce our immigration law might just have something to do with the fact that our country is now being overwhelmed by this unprecedented incursion on our border? Ask any of the migrants. They will tell you the sole reason they are coming is because of the Biden administration's decision to open the border. Under Donald Trump's leadership, they say they never would have considered making the trip, because we had achieved control of our border for the first time in a generation. Yet, on inauguration day, Mr. Biden reversed the Remain in Mexico policy, he ordered ICE not to enforce the law, and he abandoned the border wall. This Attorney General has no idea if his department is doing anything to enforce those immigration laws. Well, Mr. Speaker, without immigration laws, we have no border; and if we have no border, then we have no country. Gallop estimates that based on their polling, there are 42 million people living in poverty in South America and the Caribbean who intend to come to the United States now that they can. I would ask my fellow Democrats on the other the aisle, how are American workers helped by flooding the labor market with another wave of low-wage labor? How are our children helped by filling their classrooms with non-English-speaking classmates? How are our communities made safer by making it harder to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members? How are our hospitals made more accessible by overwhelming emergency rooms with illegal immigrants demanding care? Mr. Speaker, no civilization in history has survived the mass migration that we are now watching move toward our border. And history is screaming this warning at us, that countries that either cannot or will not enforce their borders simply aren't around very long. People ask me all the time now, how can this be happening to our country? Well, the answer is pretty simple, if you voted for the Democrats, this is exactly what you voted for. And if you are surprised by that, you weren't paying any attention.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, during the Trump administration, Republicans passed one of the biggest tax cuts in American history and the largest regulatory relief ever. Together, they produced the biggest economic expansion in our lifetimes. Before the lockdown left took a wrecking ball to our economy, Americans were prospering with the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, the lowest poverty rate in 60 years, and the fastest wage growth in 40 years. For the first time in decades, the income gap was narrowing. Well, Joe Biden and the Democrats have reversed these policies with reckless abandon, and it is no coincidence that real wages for Americans have declined every single month since he took office. History is crystal clear on this point: No country has ever taxed, spent, and borrowed its way to prosperity, but many have done so to their ruin. Brian Riedl tallied up the total cost of the Democrats' new spending bills for the New York Post today and estimates $8 trillion over the next 10 years, more than $60,000 per family. Joe Biden and the Democrats tell us it won't cost you a penny. It will all be paid by somebody else. But here is the dirty little secret of government spending. Government cannot put a dollar into the economy that it hasn't first taken out of the same economy. Every dollar it gives to you, it must take from you, and there are only three ways to do that: through current taxes, which rob you of your current purchasing power; through borrowing, which robs you of your future purchasing power; or by printing money, which robs you every time you go shopping by reducing the value of your earnings, while it silently hollows out your savings and retirement funds. Don't fall for their lie that their taxes will only fall on businesses. Businesses don't pay business taxes; you pay business taxes. You pay them as a consumer through higher prices; you pay them as an employee through lower wages; and you pay them as an investor through lower earnings. That is your retirement fund. You know they are coming after working families because they want to hire 87,000 new IRS agents--87,000 new IRS agents. That is every man, woman, and child living today in Miami Beach, Florida, or Ogden, Utah. Imagine the entire population of one of those cities hired to go after every taxpayer in America. And get this: The Democrats' so-called American Families Plan will require your bank to report every one of your private transactions over $600 to the IRS--every transaction you make over $600 automatically reported to the IRS. Does that sound like they are coming after the Biden family? No, they are coming after your family. If you are typical, you already paid more in taxes last year than you paid for food, clothing, healthcare, and entertainment combined. Yet, according to the Democrats, that is just not enough. What else do you get for your $60,000 of new taxes and inflation and tax-driven price increases? Well, you get amnesty, legal permanent residence, and a fast track for citizenship for 8 to 10 million foreign nationals who illegally entered our country and demand to stay. Now, let's just take the lower number, 8 million. That is the entire population of Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, South Dakota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Montana, and Maine combined--this at a time when real family earnings are declining, crime is increasing, homelessness is rampant, and mounting debt is killing the American Dream of a better future for our children. Explain to me how American workers are helped by flooding the labor market with low-wage labor. Of course, the woke ruling class makes out very well. That $60,000 taken from your earnings over the next decade will, for example, pay bonuses of up to $50,000 each for reporters and bloggers across the country who so shamelessly do the Democrats' bidding. There are lavish handouts to Ivy League universities and the fashionable elite who buy $82,000 Teslas. There is even a new civilian climate corps, presumably filled with officious little climate pioneers ever eager to report whose chimney is smoking, who is watering the lawn on the wrong day, and who is spreading forbidden climate disinformation. It is easy to make fun of all this until you realize this is about to become law. America, for God's sake, wake up. Our country is on the precipice. I have just one question for my Democratic colleagues: What makes you think socialism will work any better here than everywhere else it has been tried?

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the collapse of our southern border now poses a mortal danger to our country. No civilization has ever survived the magnitude of mass migration that this administration is not only accommodating but is encouraging. When Donald Trump left office, we had operational control of our borders. The border wall was nearing completion. Court-ordered deportations were finally being enforced. The Migrant Protection Protocols negotiated with Mexico reduced the number of fraudulent asylum claims to a trickle. All that Biden needed to do was to continue these policies. Instead, he reversed them on his first day in office. He ordered the border wall to be abandoned, leaving construction gaps that make it useless. He ordered ICE to cease enforcing the law. He reversed the remain in Mexico policy. And he sent a clear and unmistakable message heard around the world: America is now a nation without borders. And nations without borders aren't around very long. The numbers are staggering. In July, Customs and Border Patrol encountered 212,000 foreign nationals illegally entering our country. That is the entire population of Birmingham, Alabama, in a month. In August, another 209,000, which is Des Moines, Iowa. There have been, already, 1\1/2\ million such encounters this year, and the Gallup organization warns us there are 42 million people living in poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean who intend to come here if they can. And they are. Almost overnight last week, 15,000 Haitian nationals illegally crossed the border and set up camp in Del Rio, Texas. It is reported that DHS is tracking an additional 40,000 to 60,000 Haitian migrants between Colombia and the U.S. border. Contrary to claims by the administration, only a fraction of them have been returned to Haiti. It appears the vast majority are being rapidly and furtively processed into our communities. There is no denying the fact that this is a deliberate policy by this administration to fundamentally change the economy, politics, culture, customs, and institutions of the American Republic. Democrats on the Judiciary Committee just voted to grant amnesty, permanent legal residence, and a fast track to citizenship for between 8 and 10 million foreign nationals who have already illegally entered our country, defied our laws, thumbed their noses at our sovereignty, and are demanding to stay and are expecting American taxpayers to continue to support them. Eight to 10 million, we need to understand what that means. Eight million is the entire population--every man, woman, and child--living in the States of Alaska, Maine, Delaware, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Montana, and Vermont combined. This is at a time when real family earnings are declining, crime is increasing, homelessness is rampant, and mounting debt is killing the American Dream of a better future for our children. Is it any wonder our borders are overwhelmed? Ask the migrants why they are coming. Every one of them will tell you it is because of Joe Biden's promise of admission, amnesty, and citizenship. That is why we are seeing this tragic and shocking trafficking of young children, and it is going to continue until we secure our border and start enforcing our immigration laws, which are already among the most liberal in the world. We are told we need to legalize those who illegally took Americans' jobs as essential workers during the pandemic. The fact is, 45 percent of the entire workforce is considered essential by the government. That is hardly an exclusive group. What the Democrats are really saying is that if you are part of the 55 percent of Americans they don't consider essential and you lost your job during their leftist lockdowns, you will be pushed aside for those who violated our laws, broke the rules, and now compete in the job market that you are trying to get back into, while using your money to do it. Please, someone, explain to me: How are American workers helped by flooding the labor market with another wave of illegal immigration? How are our children, who have been robbed of an entire year of their educations, helped by filling their classrooms with non-English- speaking classmates? How are our communities made safer by making it harder to deport criminal illegal aliens and gang members? How are our hospitals made more accessible by overwhelming emergency rooms with illegal immigrants demanding care? Mr. Speaker, people are asking me every day: How could this have happened to our country? And the answer is simple. If you voted for the Democrats, this is what you voted for. And if you are surprised, you weren't paying attention.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, near the end of World War II, the United Stated detonated the first atomic weapon at the Trinity Test Site in New Mexico. Between this first test in 1945 and 1963, the United States did conduct nearly 200 atmospheric, that is aboveground, atomic weapons tests. These activities and other aspects of our atomic weapons program may indeed have led to cancer in some people and other radiation- related illnesses. That is why, in 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA, to provide restitution to these individuals. This would add to RECA an apology to individuals in many States. Now, notably, this amendment would extend an apology to individuals residing in States not even eligible for compensation under the current terms of RECA. After Congress last extended and expanded RECA in 2000, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine studied the effect of nuclear weapons tests on the health of surrounding populations. This study concluded, ``the scientific evidence indicates that in most cases it is unlikely that exposure to radiation from fallout was a substantial contributing cause to developing cancer.'' Simply put, the science does not support the assertion that atomic weapons testing caused widespread instances of cancer. Despite this finding, the amendment before us would declare that U.S. atomic weapons testing caused cancer in individuals in New Mexico, Idaho, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, Texas, Wyoming, Oregon, Washington, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nevada, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The Democrats are fond of saying we must follow the science when they forbid Americans from going to work or children from attending school or families from attending church. I wish they would actually follow the science not only when they find it politically convenient, but when they find it politically inconvenient. Any change to RECA must be fully considered by the Judiciary Committee to ensure that compensation is only provided for illnesses that can be reasonably traced to activities of the U.S. Government. On a personal note, I would add that my father, in 1945, was serving in the 88th Infantry Division in Italy. They were under orders to prepare to ship out for the invasion of the Japanese mainland. That invasion would have created a slaughter on both sides unimaginable to history. The development of this weapon prevented that from occurring and saved countless Japanese and American lives and the slaughter that would have otherwise unfolded. That is not something I intend to apologize for. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, every American knows the image of George Washington crossing the Delaware, the fallen rifleman at Gettysburg, and the marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima. Our history is punctuated with moments of individual heroism and virtue so profound and moving that they live forever in the memories of our countrymen and the proud story of our country. To these iconic images, history has now added another: that of a young marine sergeant in full combat gear cradling a helpless infant in her arms amidst the unfolding chaos and peril in the besieged Kabul Airport and proclaiming: ``I love my job.'' The entire story of the war in Afghanistan is told in this picture: the sacrifices borne by young Americans who volunteered to protect their country from international terrorism, the heroism of those who serve their country even when their country failed them, the idealism of a generation that tried to bring enlightened modernity to an afflicted society, and, most of all, the stark contrast between good and evil, tyranny and freedom, barbarity and justice, and brutality and mercy. Above all others, this is the image that describes it all. It is given power and immortality by the spirit of the young woman in this photo, Marine Sergeant Nicole Gee. Through the ages to come, this picture will speak of the sacrifice of blood and treasure of 20 years of struggling and of the vision, hope, liberty, justice, and humanity that summoned patriots like Nicole Gee to leave their homes and families and place themselves in harm's way on the other side of the world. As Shakespeare put it: ``This story shall the good man teach his son.'' Historians looking back on this age will find its story summarized in this single picture and illustrated in the life, dreams, and ultimate sacrifice of Nicole Gee. They will note that her life ended just days after this photo was taken at the age of just 23 years. They will remember that this angelic young lady was cut down with 12 of her brothers and sisters by incarnate, insensate evil. They will ponder where that young life might have led. That is an important question, and the answer is known to all who knew her. She could have done anything she wanted. She was married to her high school sweetheart, 4.1 GPA at Oakmont High School, ``one pretty badass marine,'' as her sister put it. She could have done anything she wanted, and what she wanted most was to serve her country and to serve humanity. Who else but a guardian angel amidst the chaos and violence of those last days in Kabul could look beyond all that and look into the eyes of an infant and proclaim: ``I love my job''? Speaking of the fallen heroes of past wars, James Michener asked the haunting question: Where do we get such men? Well, here is the answer: We get such men and women from little towns across America like Roseville, California. They leave their family and friends in pursuit of the highest virtues of which human beings are capable, and they do it because their country asks them and because it is noble. I don't know how to offer condolences to Nicole's family, to her husband, Jarod; her father, Rick; her sister, Misty; and her family and friends. The loss they bear is beyond my comprehension. I can only offer my awe and gratitude that humanity has within itself a small band of brothers and sisters like Nicole Gee; for without them, America, that ``last best hope of mankind on this Earth,'' would not be possible. A few steps from here in the rotunda is a fresco called The Apotheosis of Washington. It depicts General Washington in uniform ascending to the heavens flanked by Victory and Freedom and surrounded by the essence and fruits of a free nation. And in that depiction, Washington beckons. From little towns like Roseville, California, decent young men and women with promising futures like Nicole Gee have answered. I don't know how their families can bear it, but I do know that we owe them. Before her father left the stage at a community memorial, he had one request. He pleaded: ``Never forget her please, never forget her.'' We can never repay that debt except to honor her memory, keep her sacrifice always in mind, and to draw inspiration from her dedication and devotion to God and country--to all those who sacrificed everything ``to proclaim liberty throughout all the land and unto all the inhabitants thereof.''

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, not long ago, our elections worked well. We maintained accurate voter registration rolls and routinely removed people who moved or died. After all the candidates had their say, on election day, we went to our local polling place. We brought our children to watch the process and taught them to respect it. Our neighbors on the precinct board handed us our ballot after we identified ourselves and signed the roll. We took it into a curtained booth where no one could pressure us to vote a certain way. We then handed that ballot back to our neighbor, who placed it in a locked box. It was very hard to cheat because every ballot had a simple chain of custody. The woke left seeks to destroy that process. Where they control the law, registration is instant, and outdated registrations are rarely removed. Ballots are sent to every name, followed by partisan harvesters to collect them. In fact, over 300 mail-in recall ballots were just found in the possession of a felon passed out in his car in Torrance, California. Back in California, you can print ballots on your home printer and then send them in. Ballots are no longer secret. Family members, spouses, caregivers, or party hacks can cajole or pressure you as you cast your vote. Every fraudulent vote disenfranchises a legitimate voter. That is the ultimate in voter suppression. This bill effectively makes it impossible for States to restore integrity measures like in-person election day voting or voter ID. It ensures that the chaos and turmoil of recent elections is magnified and institutionalized. In every election, somebody wins and somebody loses. Democracy depends on both sides having the confidence that an election was fair and accurately reflects the will of the majority. How can anyone have that confidence under such a system as the left would impose? The answer is we can't.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I will speak on a related matter, and that is how our Forest Service approaches fire in our densely overcrowded and drought-stricken forest. Madam Speaker, on July Fourth, lightning struck a tree in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in Alpine County, California, starting a small fire that smoldered just over a quarter of an acre of rugged terrain. Now, instead of immediately attacking this fire, the U.S. Forest Service decided to monitor it instead--that is to say, to do precisely nothing. On July 16, 12 days later, that small fire of a quarter of an acre, now called the Tamarack fire, exploded out of control. It has now consumed 70,000 acres as of this writing. One of the towns in its path is Woodfords, California. In 1987, the Woodfords Fire Department responded to a report of fire on Forest Service land near their town in the same forest. They, too, were turned away. In fact, Federal officials threatened Woodfords' residents with arrest for even trying to extinguish the small blaze. Hours later, that fire exploded to 6,500 acres, costing 25 families their homes. Apparently, the Forest Service has learned absolutely nothing in 34 years. This let-burn policy of Federal land managers began back in 1972 during the height of the radical environmental movement. It stems from the premise that fire is nature's way of cleaning up forests and that active suppression of fire leads to a buildup of excess fuels. That is right, as far as it goes because an untended forest is just like an untended garden. It will grow and grow until it chokes itself to death and will ultimately be consumed by catastrophic fire. That is how nature gardens. The U.S. Forest Service was formed to remove excess growth before it can burn and to preserve our forests in a healthy condition from generation to generation. In California, active land management reduced acreage that was annually lost to wildfire for more than 4 million acres a year in pre- Columbian times to just a quarter-million acres during the 20th century. Federal foresters marked off excess timber and auctioned it to timber companies, which paid the Federal Government for harvesting rights. Environmental laws adopted in the 1970s now require years of environmental studies at a cost of millions of dollars before forest thinning can be undertaken. That essentially brought the era of active land management to a halt. The result? California's wildfire damage has returned to its prehistoric level, more than 4 million acres lost to catastrophic wildfire last year. You see, nature is a lousy gardener. In 1988, when the Federal let-burn policy produced the disastrous Yellowstone fires, President Reagan reversed it. ``I did not even know'' the policy existed, he said. ``The minute that this happened out there and Don Hodel went out, he made it plain that, no, we were withdrawing from that policy.'' That is what President Reagan said. Unfortunately, Reagan left, and the policy returned. The devastation that it has caused since then is tragic, avoidable, and incalculable. Especially given the hazardous conditions of today's forest, sensible policy would give top priority to extinguishing the small fires before they can explode out of control into mega-fires. Scrambling to explain their obvious dereliction of duty, Deputy Forest Supervisor Jon Stansfield complained that they just didn't have the resources to put out the small fire when a water drop by helicopter could have stopped it cold. Yet, they had the resources to photograph it by helicopter, and they had the resources to do countless airdrops after they had allowed it to explode out of control. Now, the Federal Government owns 96 percent of Alpine County, leaving it with virtually no tax base and entirely dependent on tourism attracted by the national forest. The fire has not only taken people's homes and destroyed their businesses, but it has severely damaged the forest resource that Alpine County's entire economy depends on for tourism. It is dangerous nonsense to monitor incipient fires in today's forest tinderbox, even if they seem to pose no immediate danger. No person in his right mind would monitor a rattlesnake curled up in his bedroom because it isn't doing much of anything at the moment. He would kill it before it does. In our national forests, only the Forest Service can prevent small blazes from becoming forest fires, and it is about time they did.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill is the culmination of 20 years of policy failures in Afghanistan, and it comes at the same time that our southern border has been recklessly opened to the world. This measure's only redeeming feature is that the alternative is even worse. Let's begin with the debacle occurring on what, until January 20, was our southern border; finally secured by President Trump's policies. On his first day in office, President Biden reversed those policies. He stopped the ``remain in Mexico'' protocols that required asylum claimants to remain there while their claims could be adjudicated. He stopped all construction on the nearly completed border wall, leaving construction gaps that make it all but useless. And he ordered our enforcement agencies not to faithfully execute the law. The result is that over a million foreign nationals have illegally entered our country this year, with a projection of 2 million by the end of the year. Now, that is the entire population of Wyoming, Alaska, and Vermont combined. And the Gallup organization warns that based on its polling, there are 42 million people just in Latin America and the Caribbean who intend to follow. And this occurs at the same time that 20 years of failed policy in Afghanistan is culminating. The attack on September 11, 2001, was our generation's Pearl Harbor. It was conducted by al-Qaida, which was acting as an agency of the Taliban government of Afghanistan, which gave it support and protection. Now, the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Congress pledged the entire resources of the country to the war and the President pledged to win through to ``absolute victory.'' Days after the attack on New York and Washington on September 11, Congress voted a tepid Authorization for the Use of Military Force--whatever that is--and the President told us to go shopping. For 20 years, we dithered, twiddled, postured, hesitated. We attacked Iraq, that had nothing to do with 9/11, and put a lot of brave troops in harm's way without giving them the support that they needed and without our leaders ever having a clear objective, much less any will to win. You know, it was from that very podium in this Chamber that General Douglas MacArthur warned that in war there is no substitute for victory. That is a lesson our leaders have failed to learn time and again. So this debacle is now coming to its sad, shameful, and sorry conclusion. The Taliban again threatened to seize this ill-fated country, imperiling the thousands of Afghans who assisted our troops in various ways. To encourage their help, we passed the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009, which created a special immigrant visa, or green card program, for Afghan nationals who worked with the United States Government for at least a year, and who face retribution from the Taliban. This program also provides green cards to their spouses and their children. Now, during the 20 years that our troops have been in Afghanistan, tens of thousands of Afghans have worked for or on behalf of the U.S. Government in one capacity or another, and to date, over 15,500 green cards have already been issued to the principal applicants. And then additionally, for each principal applicant, an average of 3.5 green cards have been issued to spouses and children. That is about 70,000 that we have already taken in. That is a city the size of Bowling Green, Kentucky. But many more are still there. So we have before us H.R. 3985, the ALLIES Act. It makes changes to the Afghan special immigrant visa program to accommodate the accelerated withdrawal that the President has ordered. The emergency created by this order means that we will not be adequately vetting arrivals under this program. Those already admitted have had to meet eligibility requirements. They have had to undergo security and background checks. If we had been able to develop this legislation the old-fashioned way, through real face-to-face meetings and good-faith discussions, I think we could have produced a process that protected both the American people and the Afghan families who sided with our government. But alas, that was not to be under this majority. Instead, H.R. 3985 authorizes 8,000 more green cards on top of the 10,000 authorized but still unclaimed. Now, given that 15,500 principal green cards have been processed over the 20-year life of this program, the odds of processing a like number in a matter of months is pretty slim; unless, of course, the administration cuts processing and vetting corners, which I think is a given. H.R. 3985 also increases the eligibility pool for the Afghan special immigration visa program in two ways. First, it removes the requirement that Afghan nationals who worked with the U.S. coalition forces must have performed ``sensitive and trusted'' activities for U.S. personnel. This provision was added several years ago with the understanding that there must be limits on the number of people who come to the U.S., and in an attempt to ensure that the limited number of green cards available actually go to those Afghan nationals who are most in danger. Now, we have asked the administration how many individuals may be eligible once this language is removed from the statute. Their answer? They don't know. And they don't care. Second, this bill extends program eligibility to Afghans whose employers received grant funding from the U.S. Government or were in cooperative agreements with the U.S. Government and who ``contributed to the United States mission in Afghanistan.'' Well, I am concerned that we do not know exactly what can be considered as contributing to the United States mission in Afghanistan or how many people to whom this could apply. The bill also eliminates the requirement that an applicant has experienced an ongoing, serious threat as a consequence of his or her qualifying employment. This requirement is one of the main reasons for the creation of the program; to help ensure the safety of those in danger because of working with the U.S. This means that among the worthy asylum seekers, we are likely to see those without merit, or worse, those who seek to do our country harm, because the vetting process is effectively abandoned by this bill. And this comes at a time when the asylum process is being made a mockery by thousands of meritless claims a day showing up on our southern border and being admitted into our country. I wish we could have had an honest and open discussion about the wisdom of eliminating this requirement in committee. Unfortunately, the Democrats chose to bypass the committee process. But with the American withdrawal fast approaching, we are left with this deeply flawed bill on the one hand, or the very real prospect of watching Afghan patriots being hunted down and seeing them and their families hung by construction cranes. So I will support this bill as the least bad option that the Democrats have left us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Waltz), a veteran of the Afghanistan war.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this is a tragedy in so many ways; the loss of so many of the best and brightest of our youth because of political and military leaders who were willing to put them in harm's way but without a commitment to victory and without the willingness to back them with the full might of the United States. For Afghanistan, it means the best and brightest of that country, the very people who were willing to risk their futures for freedom are the ones who are now being forced to flee, depriving Afghanistan of the most patriotic citizens who could otherwise have formed the core of a free government if we had finished the job we started. It is to be greatly hoped that like the Iranian diaspora, they will focus their energy from abroad to support the resistance movement that is sure to emerge under the yoke of Taliban oppression. It is to be greatly hoped that our Nation will finally return to a tradition that served us well for nearly 200 years; that there is no substitute for victory and no excuse for waging war without the absolute commitment to swiftly win it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jacobs).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), who is the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Meijer).

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank Congressman Calvert for organizing the tribute to Jerry Lewis today. I knew of Jerry Lewis many years before I had the honor to know him personally. He was elected to Congress the year that I graduated from college in southern California, and he was a well-known name then because of his activism for air quality, which at the time was a very serious concern in that region. I then had the opportunity and honor to actually be able to work with Jerry in Congress. And I have to say I was a bit leery about him at first. Jerry was a bit of the Republican old guard and I had spent an entire career fighting that affectation, but what I found was a man who was willing to listen as well as to be heard, a man who was so interested in the process and the give and take and the sharing of ideas, that he really demonstrated what this institution is all about, how it did work, and how it could work in the future if we could learn from his example and his life. I am very honored to join in the tribute to him today on the floor.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the passing of one of our great local educators, Jamie Mathias, a Social Sciences teacher within Del Oro High School for 22 years. Jamie's singular goal for students was to encourage each one to better themselves; be that in the classroom or through athletics. Jamie always pushed students to reach their next level and become the person he knew they could be. Jamie was a father figure, a coach, and a mentor to many students during his time as an educator. His academic impact on our community will be felt for a very long time. The young minds he molded and inspired that are now spread across our county are the living legacy of what a great teacher will leave behind. Most importantly, Jamie was a family man, devoted to his family and raising his children to be exceptional members of our community. They carry with them the many life lessons that Jamie imparted over the years. My deepest condolences and prayers go out to the Mathias family, especially to his wife and children. I thank Jamie, for his extraordinary impact in our schools, and the countless students he encouraged.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, ever since the Magna Carta, it has been a settled principle of good governance that the power that appropriates public funds should not be the same power that spends them. This is at the heart of our Constitution, the separation of powers. Simply speaking, it is mother's rule writ large. Mother has one slice of pie left and two hungry sons. How does she cut the pie so that both brothers are satisfied? One slices, the other chooses. One brother cannot abuse his powers precisely because of the powers accorded to the other. And it is the same with our Constitution. One brother makes law, but cannot enforce it; the other enforces law, but cannot make it. One brother appropriates money, but cannot spend it; the other spends money, but cannot appropriate it. Now, imagine how differently mother's rule would work if the same brother who sliced the pie also chose his piece. Yet that is exactly the principle of congressional earmarks: Choosing the same slice of pie you have just cut or, more precisely, spending the same money that you have just appropriated. Nearly 1,500 earmarks, totaling $5.7 billion, have been dropped into the so-called infrastructure bill alone since a bipartisan spending frenzy revived this corrupt practice this year. This monumentally bad idea rests on two arguments. The first is that elected Members of Congress, and not unelected bureaucrats, should spend the people's money. The problem, of course, is that Representatives aren't elected by all the people, only by their distinct constituencies. Representatives are inherently biased toward their own districts. That is why Congress is designed to act collectively. Only the executive answers to the entire Nation and can resist the manifest excesses of a body controlled by 535 demanding constituencies and their district-focused Representatives. That is why appropriating money is a congressional function, and spending it is an executive one. The second argument is that earmarks can grease legislation by buying off the votes of individual Members whose judgment would otherwise oppose a measure. Add a few local projects for that Member, and suddenly a bill he would never vote for on its merits becomes a local imperative overriding his sound judgment. Please explain to me how that is a good thing. And if earmarks are to be handed out as a reward for voting legislation, Members will prudently keep a list of earmarks handy as the demand for vote for any bill, whether or not they already plan to vote for it. And this is not a theoretical discussion. We have learned the hard way what comes from breaching the Constitution's checks and balances. The first problem is the corrupting nature of earmarks. When we place the power to appropriate and the power to spend in the same hands, we bypass the most important check that we have against corruption. A local company produces a product the Pentagon neither needs nor wants. Well, what to do? Ingratiate yourself with the local Congressman; have him tell the Pentagon what it needs and who will provide it; and then reward him lavishly at election time and repeat. It should come as no surprise that many of the congressional scandals of the 1990s and 2000s arose from earmarks. Second, earmarks bypass the normal process in which projects compete on their merits. Worthy projects don't need earmarks if appropriations are spent by the executive branch, according to well-established competitive, open-bid procedures. Earmarks are only required to protect unworthy projects from merit-driven competition. And even if there is such a thing as a good earmark, the price invariably is logrolling all the bad ones. Third, earmarks harm the central tenet of federalism: That local projects should be financed by local communities, and Federal expenditures reserved for the Nation's general welfare. When a local government proposes an earmark, what is it saying? It is saying the project is so low on its priority list, it won't spend its own local taxpayers funds; but it is perfectly happy to have taxpayers in other communities foot the bill. The result is a grab bag of dubious projects that rob St. Petersburg to pay St. Paul for projects St. Petersburg doesn't deem worthy enough to spend its own funds on, and that St. Paul pays for but receives no benefit from. We have sung this old song many times before and it has never ended well.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a gentleman who defines devotion to country. Colonel Hank Adams enlisted as an infantryman during World War II then proceeded to serve this country for 41 years as a soldier in the United States Army. His steady advancement from private to sergeant major to second lieutenant and then colonel is testament to a life's work undertaking demanding and often dangerous assignments extremely well. Yet, immediately after his retirement from active duty, Col. Adams continued his work to make our armed forces the best they can be. For 34 years and counting, he has served as a U.S. Military Academy Liaison Officer relentlessly working to find and mentor the very best young men and women to lead our armed forces. Col. Adams has provided critical assistance to me and the citizens of California's Fourth Congressional District. For 12 years, he has been the presiding member of my Service Academy Nomination Panel--and the only member with a Ruptured Duck on his lapel. His wise council and collegial coordination with the other former and active duty military officers on the panel has meant over 120 of the finest from this district have gone to our academies and then proceeded to protect this nation. We must remember and honor men like Col. Adams who have made this county the freest and therefore the greatest in history. His lifetime example of putting country above self is increasingly rare. All too often, it is forgotten that the freedoms we enjoy are afforded to us by the service and heroism of men Like Col. Adams. I am proud to rise today in gratitude and recognition of Col. Hank Adams' 75 years of continuous, uninterrupted service to our country.