Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I can assure the gentlewoman from Texas that we are outraged by the fact that this administration's policies and pronouncements have encouraged thousands upon thousands of children to be placed on that trail of terror in the hands of Mexican criminal cartels and brought here on the expectation of admission, an expectation that this administration is fulfilling. I must also assure the gentlewoman that this certainly is an amnesty bill. It allows anyone who is here illegally, who can claim to have worked the equivalent of 13 40-hour weeks over 2 years, legal status, amnesty. The documentation can be as little as having a friend vouch for them.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, no one disputes that this bill is a huge windfall to big agriculture. The problem is that it comes at the expense of American workers. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, nearly a half century ago, Congress passed the equal rights amendment and sent it to the States with a 7- year deadline for ratification. When that deadline expired in 1979, it was three States short of passage. Many States rejected it because it was duplicative of the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. Our Constitution already guarantees that all Americans receive equal protection under the law, and indeed these provisions have driven our progress as a society. More importantly, many felt that the ERA would unleash a crippling avalanche of activist litigation that could have unforeseen and unintended implications to issues ranging from abortion to freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. Today, 50 years after its adoption, the Democrats propose to retroactively amend the ERA to remove its deadline. They argue that Congress can alter amendments it has sent to the States, even a half century later, and yet still count their ratification votes from a half century ago. This would allow them to add three States that voted to ratify long after the deadline was passed for the very amendment that established that deadline. Of course, they don't explain how to deal with the five States that have since rescinded their ratification votes. The courts have already ruled against this approach as brazenly unconstitutional. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an ardent supporter of the ERA, pointed out a few years ago: ``So, if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard States that said, `We've changed our minds?''' If the majority were serious, it would reintroduce the ERA and debate it openly and constitutionally, as Justice Ginsburg suggested. They won't, because they know that in the nearly half century that has passed since the ERA was proposed, the world itself has passed them by.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8 is brought to us by the same organizations and politicians who have made no secret of their intention ultimately to strip law-abiding citizens of their right to defend themselves. Now, they know they can't do it outright, so they do it through cynical measures like this, which weave a web of laws so intricate that, sooner or later, everyone can be caught up in them. This law affects not only sales but any transfer of a weapon for any period of time. A couple of years ago, a 10-year study by Johns Hopkins and UC Davis concluded that California's background check law had no effect on gun homicides or suicides. None. The purpose of this bill is not public safety. That is its deceptive facade. Its purpose is to make gun ownership so legally hazardous, so fraught with legal boobytraps and draconian penalties, that no honest and law-abiding citizen would ever want to take the risk. Most criminals already get their guns illegally. They are unconstrained by laws like this. This bill is aimed squarely at law- abiding citizens, moving us closer to a society where decent people are defenseless and armed criminals are kings.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, what is the so-called Charleston Loophole? It is a provision that gives the FBI 3 days to provide a background check for a citizen to buy a gun. Now, 3 days for a background check doesn't seem unreasonable since a credit card check takes about 3 seconds. Now, if the FBI fails to give a clear ``yes'' or ``no'' in 3 days, the sale can proceed. That protects our Second Amendment right from arbitrary denial by inaction, and the clearance is good for 30 days from when you begin that transaction. Now, this bill repeals the 3-day limit and replaces it with a multistage bureaucratic review process that can span up to 20 business days. It is really quite clever. Your clearance is good for 30 calendar days from the day you begin the transaction, but the clearance can be delayed for up to 20 business days. So if you applied on January 15 of this year, 20 business days takes you to February 16. By then, your purchase window will have expired 2 days earlier, on February 14. You have to start the process over, applying for a new background check in a perpetual cycle. They never have to say ``approved.'' Would a government abuse its citizens like that? I don't know. Maybe we should ask Lois Lerner or Andrew McCabe.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that all sides can agree on: This is the most leftwing bill ever passed by the Congress. But beware. There is no such thing as free money. All of it must be borrowed from the same capital pool that would otherwise be available as loans to consumers, home buyers, and small businesses. And it will be repaid entirely from your future earnings in the years ahead. Divided by the number of U.S. households, the bill, for an average family, comes to roughly $15,000. Now, that is money that has to be taken from your family through future taxes and inflation, through lower wages and earnings as businesses pass along their costs. That is the only way that government debt can be financed. Government lockdowns have devastated America's prosperity. The answer is to end the lockdowns, not rob Americans of their futures by crushing their families under debt that will destroy their opportunity, independence, and prosperity in the years ahead.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, whenever the left takes control of local law enforcement, the result is predictable and catastrophic. They act to defund the police, deliberately withhold police protection from law- abiding shopkeepers and citizens, declare sanctuaries for criminal illegal aliens, decline to charge criminals, and prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. Mr. Speaker, we are now suffering the result: skyrocketing homicides, shootings, and other violent crimes, preying most of all upon the decent citizens of our inner cities. Now, after their summer of love and lawlessness, look at the results. Their storefronts are boarded up. Their buildings are burned out. Their streets are increasingly surrendered to the lawless. Frankly, the Democrats in Congress that have applauded these policies would not be my first choice to micromanage every police department across our country as this bill does; just saying. The ultimate target of the left is not isolated abuses by law enforcement officers but, rather, law enforcement itself. As we can now see, without law enforcement, there is no law.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, democracies die when one party seizes control of the elections process, eliminates the safeguards that have protected the integrity of the ballot, places restrictions on free speech, and seizes the earnings of others to promote candidates they may abhor. That is the bill before us today. The most dangerous provision nationalizes the mass mailing of ballots to voter rolls that contain untold numbers of people who have moved or died. It allows ballot harvesters to knock on doors and collect these ballots. There is no chain of custody from the time the ballot is mailed until the time it is returned. Ballots can be cast weeks before the election under the duress of family, friends, or precinct workers. Even if it doesn't rob our elections of their actual legitimacy, it certainly robs them of their perceived legitimacy, destroying the trust that the loser of any election must have to accept the winner was rightful. That is the bitter legacy of the last election under these practices. Why would anyone want to institutionalize them?

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, to my fellow Americans, all of this free money is coming out of your future earnings. Divided by U.S. households, $1.9 trillion comes to roughly $15,000 for an average family. You will pay that back through your future taxes and inflation and through higher prices and lower wages as businesses pass along their taxes. You won't see it all directly, but you will feel it. It is the car you won't be able to afford someday soon or the home you won't be able to qualify for.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, this law could not be plainer. It says gender is not a question of genetics, but of personal choice. And leftist dogma now calls for this doctrine to be imposed under force of law, and the effect is frightening. States that have adopted similar laws have threatened safe spaces for women and intimidated the free exercise of conscience. But let me focus on just two aspects: How this destroys women's sports and renders parents powerless to protect their own children. Selina Soule, a teenager, worked her heart out and qualified for the Connecticut State championship track meet a few years ago. This is her experience: She said, ``Eight of us lined up at the starting line . . . but when six of us were only about three-quarters into the race, two girls were already across the finish line. . . . ``What just happened? Two boys identifying as girls happened. ``Fair is no longer the norm. The chance to advance, the chance to win has been all over for us. . . . ``This policy will take away our medals, records, scholarships and dreams.'' An anguished mother named Elaine, told her story: She said, ``Let me explain to you how this works. . . . Questioning a child's professed gender identity is now illegal. ``So, if a little boy is 5 years old and believes he is the opposite sex, affirmative care means going along with his beliefs. Parents are encouraged to refer to him as their `daughter' and let him choose a feminine name. . . . ``Is it really harmless to tell a child who still believes in the tooth fairy that he is of the opposite sex? ``If a 10-year-old girl is uncomfortable with her developing body and suddenly insists she is a boy, affirmative care means blocking this girl's puberty with powerful drugs.'' America, wake up. This is the brave, new world that House Democrats propose under the name ``equality.'' The parents of every daughter, who has ever poured their hearts into a sport should be outraged that their daughter's dreams and hopes no longer matter to their own Representative. Every parent who would give their life to protect their child should be livid that this bill is about to replace them with bureaucrats who can administer puberty-blocking drugs on their child's say-so. And every American should be scared as hell to realize the ideological extremism that is now running rampant behind the razor- wired militarized U.S. Capitol. It is hard to believe that we once called it ``the people's House.'' Let this be a wake-up call to every voter. If you elect enough radicals to the Congress, you will get a radical Congress.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, everything we touch in our daily lives, everything that makes our existence possible, everything that makes us more comfortable and more prosperous, everything we see in this Chamber comes to us in only two ways. It is either grown or it is mined. That is a universal truth. Everything we enjoy on this planet is either grown or mined. Fortunately, nature has given us a super abundance of resources and left it to us to responsibly reap and to manage this bounty. But it is precisely these resources that the left has waged war against for an entire generation. The very things that make us prosperous and comfortable are the things the left attempts to place off limits. Is it any wonder that the more they extend their domain, the worse the human conditions that they produce? This bill declares another 1.5 million acres of public lands, mostly forests, an area about the size of Delaware, a wilderness area, off limits to forest management, timber harvesting, and even many forms of public recreation. An untended forest is like an untended garden. It will grow until it chokes itself to death and succumbs to disease, pestilence, and, ultimately, catastrophic wildfire. These restrictions have abandoned our forests to neglect and produced the paradox of a severe national lumber shortage while the government sits on vast timber reserves. This bill places 1,200 more miles of rivers under similar restrictions that create water shortages in some of the most water- abundant regions of our country. It prevents mineral extraction and energy production from another 1.2 million acres, killing jobs, crushing the economy, and empowering our international adversaries. At a time when the Federal Government's bad management practices have created a $12 billion maintenance backlog, this bill takes another half million acres of land into Federal mismanagement. Understand what that means to local communities. This is land that is producing no taxes and little commerce. Much is being seized over local objections in States where the Federal Government already controls more than half of their entire land area. Mr. Speaker, this is a direct attack on working Americans who depend on the resources of our Nation to put food on their tables and a roof over their heads. It is an attack on the prosperity and security of our people, and it is what we have come to expect from the greens gone wild on the other side of the aisle. The result will be more dead forests, more water shortages, increasing costs for energy and consumer goods, lower wages, and fewer jobs. These policies always produce want from plenty, and I am afraid they will continue until the American people finally demand that we restore the nation of abundance that we once took for granted.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, before the lockdown left took a wrecking ball to our economy, we were enjoying one of the greatest expansions of economic opportunity in our lifetimes. Unemployment was at its lowest rate in 50 years. The poverty rate was at its lowest rate in 60 years. Most importantly, wage growth was the strongest in 40 years, and the wage gap between rich and poor was narrowing for the first time in many years as blue-collar wages increased dramatically. The unemployment rate for women was the lowest in 70 years. For African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, veterans, disabled Americans, and those without a high school diploma, unemployment was the lowest ever recorded. Now, the tax and regulatory relief we won in 2017 and 2018 explained much of that success. But something else was going on that caused the extraordinary improvement of wages for unskilled or low-skilled workers. It was because the Trump administration restored control of our borders and stemmed the flood of low-wage labor that had been suppressing wages for American workers for decades. Big business and big agriculture hated this policy because it required them to pay higher wages to Americans, but in the growing economy it produced, working Americans who had been left behind for decades finally began to prosper. Now, did we learn nothing from this blue-collar boom? The Democrats that these families trusted to look out for their interests in the recent election are betraying them at every turn. Nowhere is that clearer than the Democrats' zeal to open our borders to a new wave of illegal immigration. The President's executive orders have already produced a new migrant crisis on the southern border. One abandoned the border wall in mid- construction. Another undermines the longstanding requirement that immigrants be able to support themselves and not burden American taxpayers. Another ends the Remain in Mexico policy for those making asylum claims, the vast majority of those claims being dubious. Yet another effectively releases illegal immigrants accompanied by youths under 18 directly into the United States. Another grants what amounts to sanctuary status for a wide variety of criminal offenses, including drunk driving and sex offenses. Another restores unrestricted travel from hotbeds of international terrorism. The worst one orders ICE not to deport illegal immigrants for 100 days. That order now enjoined by a Federal judge begs the question: What is the difference between abolishing ICE and forbidding ICE to do its job? Customs and Border Protection agents report in the last month the flow on the southern border has nearly doubled from 2,000 a day to 3,500 a day. The number of illegal immigrants encountered on the southern border during the first 4 months of the last fiscal year was nearly 165,000. That number has nearly doubled this year to more than 295,000. Every American needs to clearly understand what this means to their lives, their families, their communities, and their futures. 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 streets made safer by allowing aliens who drive drunk to remain on our roads rather than be arrested and placed in removal proceedings? How is our Nation made safer by reopening virtually unrestricted travel with nations that foster terrorism? 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 by illegal immigrants demanding care? Why would they pursue these policies that strike most acutely and painfully at America's working families? Especially now when those families are reeling from the effects of a year of repressive lockdowns? Those blue-collar workers who made the greatest gains during the Trump economic expansion are the most harmed by reversing the immigration enforcement that produced it. Let us not forget that millions of legal immigrants who obeyed our laws, respected our Nation's sovereignty, waited patiently, and have done everything our country has asked of them have also been made victims of the Democrats' pursuit of open borders. Without enforcement of our immigration laws, our borders are meaningless. And if our borders are meaningless, then America ceases to be a nation and instead becomes a vast international territory between Canada and Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I fear that is the ultimate objective of the left and that the only force that can stop them now is the American people at the ballot box.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, we are now nearly 1 year into the most self-destructive social experiment in the recorded history of human civilization. On this day 1 year ago, we enjoyed the greatest economic expansion in our lifetimes. The poverty rate was at its lowest in 60 years. The unemployment rate was the lowest in 50 years. Wage growth was the strongest in 40 years. The wage gap was narrowing, with blue-collar wages rising the fastest. Unemployment rates for minority groups and women were at the lowest ever recorded. Then, over the course of just a few catastrophic weeks, our government took a wrecking ball to it all. In the second quarter, GDP plunged by one-third, the worst decline in productivity ever recorded. Unemployment skyrocketed to its highest levels since the Great Depression. Tens of millions of Americans lost their jobs. Trillions of dollars of the Nation's wealth were squandered. In the months since, our children have been robbed of a year of their education. Millions of Americans have been forbidden from earning a living by their own government. Shopkeepers have seen their life's work destroyed, and when in desperation they try to hold on, they are led away in handcuffs. Our most cherished rights to worship freely; to peaceably assemble; and not to be deprived of our lives, liberty, or property without due process of law have all been destroyed. Now, COVID did not cause this damage. Public officials did. They promised us it was for our own good and that it would save lives. But mounting evidence in multiple scientific studies is putting the lie to these sophistries. It is becoming increasingly, tragically, and bitterly clear that the lockdowns have not only failed to save lives, but they are costing lives. Last month, the University of Denmark released the results of a study comparing Danish municipalities that locked down with those that did not. Their conclusion: The lockdowns had ``statistically insignificant effects.'' Their conclusion mirrored a similar study out of Stanford University that compared eight lockdown nations and two non-lockdown nations. They concluded: ``We fail to find an additional benefit of stay-at-home orders and business closures.'' Now, these are studies based not on assumptions and models but on actual, real-life, hardcore data. That is what the science is telling us, and it is telling us the same thing for multiple studies: The lockdowns have not saved lives, certainly not to any statistically significant level. But it gets worse, much worse. We are now seeing mounting evidence that the lockdowns are costing lives on a staggering scale. Last month, the National Bureau of Economic Research warned that increases in poverty caused by the lockdowns will cost more than 800,000 American lives over the next 15 years due to higher poverty levels, with the deaths disproportionately affecting African Americans and women. That comports with a U.N. warning that tens of millions of people worldwide are being pushed to the brink of starvation. Suicide rates have jumped dramatically over the past year. Dementia deaths between March and September jumped 13,000 as patients were left with little means of social interaction. San Francisco reported that additional deaths from drug overdoses exceeded the total COVID deaths in 2020. According to The Wall Street Journal, the CDC reported 475,000 excess deaths in the United States at a time when it was reporting 281,000 COVID-related fatalities. Now, that difference is 192,000 additional deaths unexplained by normal mortality and COVID combined. Could it be this is the butcher's bill from a folly that has produced skyrocketing suicides, drug and alcohol deaths, domestic homicides, isolation-related deaths, delayed health screenings, delayed health treatments, and poverty-related deaths? Unlike COVID, which is a curse brought us by nature, lockdown deaths are the fault of specific individuals in positions of public trust who imposed draconian restrictions out of panic, fear, ignorance, or egotism. They preened and virtue-signaled and boasted how much they cared for the lives of others while they have pursued a folly that is needlessly taking an appalling toll of lives and livelihoods. Some of those responsible hold power by virtue of appointments by elected officials while others are elected officials themselves, and I fear this nightmare will not end until the officials who are responsible for it are removed from the offices they hold.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, $2 trillion in revenues, $6 trillion in spending. This is madness. This is how countries commit fiscal suicide: force the economy to shut down, and then hand out government checks. The problem, of course, is that the government does not finance the economy. It is the economy that finances the government. And when you wantonly destroy millions of jobs by forcing small businesses to shutter, by canceling construction and energy production across the country, when you flood the labor market with millions of illegal immigrants at a time when millions of Americans are out of work, you shut down the economy, and you shut down the tax revenues that the economy produces and that the government spends. And so we borrow instead. Now, this budget requires $4 trillion in borrowing. Now, where will it borrow this $4 trillion from? The future earnings of your family, of course. Let's add this up. There are 129 million households in the United States. $4 trillion comes to $31,000 added to the debt of every household in America, at the average. Now, this isn't theoretical. That is real money that will be repaid by every family through its future taxes, tax-driven price increases, lower wages, and inflation. That is the future for our families that the Democrats set in motion today while they promise to help us through these tough times with this sorry excuse for a budget resolution. Mr. Speaker, it is not just our future that is being robbed. That money must be repaid in the future, but it must be borrowed in the present from the same capital market that would otherwise be available to loan to consumers seeking to make consumer purchases that drive two- thirds of our economic growth, or businesses seeking to recover, or to home buyers seeking to buy homes. That money will not be there for them because the government has borrowed it instead. Now, remember, the government cannot put a single dollar into the economy that it has not first taken out of that very same economy. If I take a dollar from Peter and give it to Paul, it is true, Paul has an extra dollar to spend. That is what the Democrats are calling stimulus. But it is equally true that Peter now has one less dollar to spend in that same economy, which is why these stimulus schemes never work in the present and always diminish our future. Mr. Speaker, our country is in desperate condition because of government-mandated lockdowns that have failed to slow the coronavirus while they have laid waste to our economy and the livelihoods of millions upon millions of Americans. There is only one relief measure that will rescue our Nation from this dystopian nightmare: End the lockdowns. History is screaming this warning at us. Countries that bankrupt themselves and destroy their economies simply aren't around very long. Let that not be the epitaph of the United States of America.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I didn't like the President's speech on January 6 either. I thought he was wrong to assert that the Vice President and Congress can pick and choose which electoral votes to count. He was wrong to set such a confrontational tone in a politically tense situation. But what did he actually say? His exact words were: ``I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol Building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.'' That is impeachable? That is called freedom of speech. Now, he also threatened to oppose candidates in future elections. And, by the way, that was directed at Republicans like me who had resolved to uphold the constitutional process and protect the electoral college. Well, so what? That is called politics. If we impeached every politician who gave a fiery speech to a crowd of partisans, this Capitol would be deserted. That is what the President did. That is all he did. He specifically told the crowd to protest peacefully and patriotically, and the vast majority of them did. But every movement has a lunatic fringe. Suppressing free speech is not the answer. Holding rioters accountable for their actions is the answer, and we are. If we prosecuted BLM and antifa rioters across the country with the same determination these last 6 months, this incident might not have happened at all. Now, short of declaring war, the power of impeachment is the most solemn and consequential act that Congress can take. To use it in this manner, in the heat of the moment, with no hearings, no due process, many Members phoning in their votes after a hastily called debate, exactly 1 week before a new President is to take office, trivializes this power to the point of caricature. The Democrats have won everything in sight--the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. In a republic, that calls for magnanimity by the victors. Only in a banana republic does it call for vengeance. Benjamin Franklin warned us that ``passion governs, and she never governs wisely.'' In our passions this week, we have set some dangerous new precedents that will haunt us for years to come. Yesterday, we redefined intemperate speech as a physical incapacity requiring removal from office. Today, we define it as a high crime and misdemeanor. Well, the moment any Member of this body gives an impassioned speech and the lunatic fringe of their movement takes license from it, be prepared to answer to this new precedent that we establish today. Now, I could cite plenty of provocative speeches made by Democrats that directly preceded violence this summer, but we have already had enough of that. After 600,000 Americans had perished in the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln appealed to the better angels of our nature. He said: With malice toward none, with charity for all, let us bind up the Nation's wounds. Those words were so important to the unity of our Nation they are inscribed in marble at the Lincoln Memorial. I cannot think of a more petty, vindictive, and gratuitous act than to impeach an already defeated President a week before he is to leave office. President-elect Biden's promise to heal the Nation becomes a hollow mockery in the harsh reality of this unconstitutional act. God help our country.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, what a sad and ominous way to begin the 117th Congress. Hasn't this body done enough in the last session to divide our country and abuse our Constitution without carrying that damage into the new session? The 25th Amendment specifically addresses the incapacity of the President to discharge the duties of his office. It was never intended as a political weapon when Congress doesn't like the way he discharges those duties. Now, I have read that speech. He never suggested rampaging the Capitol and disrupting the Congress. He urged them to--and this is an exact quote--``peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.'' Now, many of us Republicans joined a bipartisan vote to respect the electoral college votes despite our suspicions, our misgivings, and our desires. We did this because the Constitution commanded it and our institutions depend on it. Now, today, those same principles should compel a bipartisan vote to oppose this grotesque abuse of the 25th Amendment. Last week, the majority argued that the President tried to misuse the Constitution to overturn the votes of the electoral college. Well, he asserted no direct power. Rather, he urged the Vice President and Congress to do so. Many of us declined his bad advice. Yet, this week, the majority directly is asserting power to misuse the 25th Amendment in a manner that does overturn the votes of the previous electoral college. Don't they see that they are committing directly the same offense they accuse the President of committing indirectly? Every act we take builds a precedent for future acts. Once Congress asserts this new role as armchair psychiatrists and a new power to equate intemperate speech with functional disability, the most important pillars of our government--stability, the rule of law, and the separation of powers--will fracture. It won't affect this President, but it will stalk future Presidents from this day forward. For their sake, please don't do this.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, let's get this straight. The small shopkeeper who has lost their entire savings because of the lockdowns will get the same $2,000 grant as the government bureaucrat who has been enjoying a steady paycheck at home for the past 10 months. This money is wholly inadequate for those who have been harmed by the lockdowns and wholly unnecessary for those who have not. This free money doesn't come from Heaven. It comes from the future earnings of those who will be struggling to get back on their feet, making the post-lockdown recovery more difficult and prolonged. Much of the burden of this debt will fall on the young, who have already borne the brunt of these lockdowns. It is, in a real sense, a massive wealth transfer from the future to the present, from the young to the old, and from those who have been hurt by the lockdowns to those who have not. There is only one way to end the suffering caused by these lockdowns, and that is to end them.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a bill that will very effectively put most swordfish boats on the West Coast out of business. I believe it is yet another battle on a multifront war by the far-left Democrats against America's working class. The swordfish boats on the West Coast harvest a Pacific fishery that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has classified as ``underutilized.'' There is no shortage of swordfish thanks to the responsible management of this fishery under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The principal means of harvesting swordfish is the drift gillnet, which has been a target of environmental extremists for years. Despite their lurid tales of indiscriminate catches of other species, particularly endangered species, this is, in fact, a very rare occurrence. With respect to endangered species, the National Marine Fisheries Service reported: ``It is NMFS' biological opinion that the proposed action of continued management of the drift gillnet fishery is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these seven endangered species and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify any ESA-listed designated critical habitat.'' So here we have an industry that some of the hardest working men and women in America depend upon to feed their families--and, by the way, feed ours, as well--in an underutilized fishery by means of drift gillnets that have an extremely low incidence of inadvertent bycatch. So what does Congress propose to do for these families? Commend them for their hard work? Thank them for the contribution they make to America's food supply and to the American economy? Well, no, not exactly. Instead, Congress proposes to shut them down. Those aren't my words. When Gary Burke, one of the swordfishermen threatened by this bill came before our subcommittee, he said: ``I want to be very clear regarding the impacts of this legislation on the driftnet gill fleet. It will shut us down.'' And for what possible reason? The fishery is sound; the industry is responsible; incidental takes are extremely rare. Why would anyone want to decimate these families and American consumers as well? Just for the hell of it seems to be the only logical explanation. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act has been lauded by conservationists for many decades. It has stood the test of time and proven itself to be a program that works. The Regional Fishery Management Council process works because it is collaborative, and it involves the parties with a direct stake in keeping the fishery healthy. This legislation is a ham-handed, iron-fisted, top-down diktat that goes against everything that Magnuson-Stevens stands for. Now, we just heard: Don't worry. There is an alternative that will work just fine. It is the deep-set buoy gear. And, yes, it is sometimes used to supplement the drift gillnets, but it is not economically viable by itself. As the actual swordfishermen explained, the costs of running a fishing vessel--fuel, debt service, and labor--often means a very tight profit margin. To make a trip viable, the boat must achieve enough of a catch to at least offset its costs. The alternative this bill would force on them simply doesn't catch nearly as many fish and certainly not enough to make the trip profitable. Reduce the catch below the break-even mark--as this bill surely does--and there is no catch because the boat can't go out. How do we know that? Because the very fishermen who use the deep-set buoy gear have told us so. They state in a letter to the committee: ``Our concern is based on the fact that while there is potential for alternative gear to be used in this industry, currently there is no existing gear that can be substituted for the drift gillnet and still allow fishermen to earn a living.'' Those are the people who use that equipment. So let me repeat that: Our fishermen will not be able to earn a living using this experimental gear. The majority knows this; it is just they don't care. This legislation does nothing to improve fisheries management but, instead, does great harm in two respects: It takes away the earnings of American fishermen, and it raises the price of seafood for American families. Again, don't take my word for it, or even the fishermen whose livelihoods are being cast aside. The Natural Resources Committee received testimony from NOAA which stressed to our members that this bill ``does not reflect the progress made to date in minimizing bycatch in the U.S. West Coast drift gillnet fishery. Based on the best available science and 26 years of observer data, bycatch of threatened or endangered protected species is a rare event.'' Now let's talk about the unintended consequences of putting the American West Coast swordfish industry out of business. It doesn't protect the fishery because the fishery isn't endangered. It doesn't protect other species because incidental taking of those species is rare. The ultimate irony is that this bill doesn't even stop the use of drift gillnets except, of course, for Americans. This bill will effectively remove West Coast swordfish from the market, but it doesn't remove the market demand. So what happens? Consumer prices will go up and the market will meet that demand by shifting to swordfish caught by foreign fleets where they are not strictly regulated and where they will enjoy an enormous competitive advantage by being unrestricted in their use of the very same drift gillnets that Americans--and only Americans--are forbidden from using. Again, that is not my conclusion. That is the conclusion of NOAA itself, which told our committee: ``NOAA is concerned that shifting to alternative gears that are not economically viable could decrease U.S. swordfish harvest and reduce the U.S. West Coast large mesh drift gillnet fishery's competitiveness against foreign fisheries with less restrictive environmental regulations during the phaseout.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of this cruel and ill-conceived measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I implore the majority to consider the damage that it will do with this bill. The West Coast swordfish fishery is healthy and, indeed, underutilized. The drift gillnet results in very little incidental take of other species. To put a number on it, in 17 years, only 10 whales interacted with these nets, and 4 of them were released alive. Six of them were killed. Now, to put that in perspective--6 in 17 years--roughly 80 whales are killed by ships off the California coast every year. Six were killed by driftnets in 17 years; 80 are killed by ship collisions every year. Does my friend see the difference? Banning the nets will reduce the catch below the level that is economically viable. It will shut down the industry. The result will be devastating to the families that run these businesses. It will be harmful to the consumer who will pay higher prices for this product, and it will encourage increased use of driftnets in foreign waters to fill the shortage caused by banning them in our own. Why in God's name would anyone want to do that? Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the California fishermen who participated in the experimental technology demonstration project expressing their concerns with the bill. May 6, 2019. Re: H.R. 1979--Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act Hon. Ted Lieu, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Lieu: We are participants in the experimental Deep-Set Buoy Gear (``DSBG'') fishery off the California Coast. A majority of us participate in, or have participated in, the drift gillnet fishery. We are writing to express our concerns regarding H.R. 1979, the Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act. H.R. 1979 includes language which will phase-out the use of drift gillnets (``DGN'') to harvest swordfish and require the ``. . . adoption of alternative fishing practices that minimize the incidental catch of living marine resources''. Our concern is based on the fact that while there is potential for alternative gear to be used in this fishery, currently there is no existing gear that can be substituted for the DGN gear and still allow fishermen to earn a living. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (``PFMC'') is currently working towards authorizing Deep-Set Buoy Gear (``DSBG''), a swordfish gear type that was developed to provide west coast fishers with an additional gear option for use during periods of reduced landings. DSBG has been allowed to operate under an Exempted Fishing Permit (``EFP'') since 2015. As noted in the initial EFP application DSBG was designed to ``. . . provide fishers with a complementary gear type that can be used in conjunction with harpooning . . . . and also compliment ongoing DGN activities.'' Participants in the initial EFP had extensive experience targeting swordfish with DGN and harpoon gears and participated in the research trials so that they could expand domestic fishery options for the West Coast. This continues to be a priority for managers and the fishing community, as current restrictions limit summertime harvest off California waters, forcing markets to import swordfish even when the resource is available in local waters. The coupling of DSBG, harpoon and DGN techniques provides the tools needed to capitalize on this federal resource throughout the entire fishery season. This is critical given that different gear types have different seasons in which they work optimally. Because DSBG landings peak in the months prior to that of the DGN fishery, our community has largely supported the advent and trial of new techniques, as they have the potential to augment and revitalize our declining fishery. Now that H.R. 1979 proposes to phase out DGN and replace it with DSBG, we are concerned that this will further impact the viability of west coast swordfish operations all together. We are certain that the DGN market share will be filled with additional unregulated foreign-caught swordfish. As shown in 2018, increases in unregulated imports drives market price down, reduces domestic profitability and deters participation our US fisheries. Collectively, we feel that H.R. 1979 will negatively impact local livelihoods, increase our reliance upon foreign fleets and decrease the productivity and of our west coast fishery. We are also concerned over the proposed transition of the traditional DGN fleet to a future DSBG fishery. Some of the DGN vessels are larger than those currently used in the DSBG fishery and many of them only fish for swordfish during the fall window in which DGN works optimally. We are troubled that the proposed transition will create an inequity among the fleet and negatively impact fishing operations and profitability. We feel that H.R. 1979 is premature and should be contemplated only after it is demonstrated that DSBG can be profitable for the entire DGN community. Until then, we hope to continue to provide domestic west coast swordfish caught using highly regulated techniques that continue to operate in full federal and state compliance. Sincerely, Chugey Sepulveda, PhD, EFP Lead, Pfleger Institute of Environmental Research, Oceanside, CA; Donald Krebbs, F/V Goldcoast, San Diego, CA; Ben Stephens, F/V Tres Mujeres, Vista, CA; Freddie Hepp, F/V Plumeria, Santa Barbara, CA; William Sutton, F/V Aurelia, Ojai, CA; Nathan Perez, F/V Bear Flag II, Newport Beach, CA; Jack Stephens, F/V DEA, Vista, CA; Kelly Fukushima, F/V Three Boys, San Diego, CA.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, every American needs to see Angela Marsden's tearful video as she pours out her frustrations as a small restaurant owner in Los Angeles. Forced to drastically curtail her business during California's brutal shutdowns, she took out an $80,000 loan to meet all the expensive requirements to move her dining outside and salvage what was left of her life's work. Instead, authorities arbitrarily changed the rules and shut her down again, a death sentence for her 10-year-old restaurant. Yet, the same authorities permitted a film production company to offer the very same outdoor dining across the very same parking lot the day she had to close her business. ``I am losing everything,'' she says through her tears. ``Everything I own is being taken away from me.'' In Staten Island, police hauled a restaurant owner away in handcuffs for desperately trying to reopen his establishment just across the tracks from other restaurants where dining was allowed under precisely the same conditions. When asked to explain these capricious standards, California's Governor Gavin Newsom smarmed: Oh, I am deeply empathetic. Well, that must be a load off of their minds. The Fifth Amendment in our Bill of Rights specifically protects Americans from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Where are those rights today? Congress is now discussing how to provide relief for the thousands of small business owners, their employees, and the families that depend on them who have been crushed by these reckless edicts. As usual, politicians measure their empathy by how much they are willing to spend of other people's money. But the fine point of the matter is this: Government cannot support the economy for any significant period of time because government does not finance the economy. It is the economy that finances the government. When you shut down the economy, you shut down the revenues that go to the government. The only genuine relief from the COVID lockdowns is to end the COVID lockdowns. Why is it so hard for some people to understand that? By now, it ought to be obvious that the lockdowns have failed to contain this virus. After 9 months of this unprecedented experiment in social engineering, the virus continues to spread. Common sense should tell us that the more infectious a virus and the deeper it has already penetrated into a population, the less effective mass isolation will be. The plight of Angela Marsden and countless victims of these policies tell us clearly what we are very effectively accomplishing. We are destroying our society. We have set in motion countless avoidable deaths by suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, deferred health treatments, deferred health screenings, and poverty that will stalk us for many years to come. We have robbed our youth of a year of their educations. Nearly half of American retailers say they are now in imminent danger of permanently closing. Forbes magazine reports: ``The number one worry on most small business owners' mind now is the threat of more government-mandated business closures.'' Eleven million Americans who had jobs in February no longer have those jobs today. Modern science and its many breakthroughs in immunology, epidemiology, and virology have given us advanced treatments and vaccines unparalleled in human history. But science is grotesquely incompetent to reorder human societies or to change the laws of human nature, nor does it give officials the omniscience to know what is best for every person in every circumstance, nor does it give them the right to wantonly destroy people's lives and livelihoods. After all, medicine's most ancient command is: First, do no harm. We have arbitrarily and indiscriminately destroyed the life's work and life's dreams of millions of Americans like Angela Marsden. We have made the most sacred right of Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness into a hollow and bitter mockery. The American people don't need the Governor's empathy, and they don't need politicians' handouts. They need a government that protects their right to make a living and to lead their own lives according to their own best judgment. They need their Bill of Rights back, and above all, they need their freedom back.