Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 616.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 616, the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association Charter Amendments Act of 2025. The Federal Bar Association was founded in 1920 as a nonprofit organization. In 1954, Congress chartered the Federal Bar Association as a congressionally chartered organization under title 36. The FBA seeks to strengthen the Federal legal system and administration of justice by providing services to Federal practitioners, the Federal judiciary, and the public. The FBA serves the Federal legal community by promoting standards of professional competence and ethical conduct, providing educational programs to the public and the profession, and facilitating the administration of justice. The FBA is also committed to bringing civics education programs to classrooms across the country. Over the years, it has become necessary for the FBA to update its bylaws. Because the FBA is a congressionally chartered organization, it takes an act of Congress to make changes in its charter to permit the FBA to update those bylaws. S. 616 amends the FBA's current charter in several ways: It removes the requirement for the FBA to be incorporated and domiciled in Washington, D.C.; It allows the board of directors to choose the location of the principal office; It specifies that the FBA's bylaws establish membership requirements, responsibilities of the board of directors, and the election of officers; It prohibits a director or officer from contributing or participating in political activities; It prohibits loans to members and employees; and It specifies that in the event of dissolution, any remaining assets are to be distributed by as provided by the board of directors. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of S. 616, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, it is often said that capitalism is selfishness and socialism is sharing. That is exactly backwards. The only way to succeed in a capitalist society is to figure out what somebody else needs and how to get it for them better than they can get it for themselves. It might be mowing their lawn. It might be doing brain surgery on their child. We have to help our neighbor somehow. It is true if I take $1 from Peter and give it to Paul, Paul is $1 richer and Peter is $1 poorer. What I have really done is to take from both of them $1 worth of incentive to help each other. Peter no longer has a reason to help Paul because he no longer benefits, and Paul has no reason to help Peter because he no longer needs to. Socialism, thus, dissolves the natural bonds that hold a society together and lead each of us to help one another. Capitalism is voluntary. Peter and Paul help each other because it is in their mutual interest to do so. Socialism is compulsion. We have got to take what one has earned from helping others and give it to someone who has none. As Lincoln said: ``It is the same spirit that says, You toil and work and earn bread, and I'll eat it.'' Slavery and socialism both spring from that same rotten principle. Many societies have succumbed to the siren's song of a benevolent and all-powerful government, only to awaken one morning to find that benevolence is gone and the all-powerful government is still there. Let that not be the epitaph of the United States of American. The history of human society can be summed up in just four words: Freedom works; socialism sucks.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, Zohran Mamdani's winning message was affordability, that the necessities of life are increasingly out of reach for most people, and that government is the answer. He said on election night: ``There is no problem too large for government to solve.'' Mr. Speaker, he is right about the problem, but he is completely wrong about the solution. As Ronald Reagan often warned: ``Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.'' Housing affordability is a good place to start. When and where a free market is maintained, homebuilders have every incentive to meet the housing needs at every income level. The profit margin might be bigger at the top, but the sheer numbers of lower income families compensate with volume, assuring ample affordable housing for all income levels. Government sets basic safety standards but otherwise leaves consumers alone to make their own decisions about everything else. As the tax base grows, new revenues are available to expand water systems, electricity generation, highway capacity, schools, police, and fire, all the necessities of a community. Landlords have every incentive to provide as many rental units as the population needs, while competition keeps rents low and demand keeps units plentiful. What has happened? Government decided to solve what socialists viewed as problems. To solve suburban sprawl, the socialists began imposing severe limits and costly fees on construction permits. Builders could no longer profit from building vast numbers of affordable homes, so they focused their limited permits on the pricier models. To solve climate change, the socialists mandated outrageously expensive add-ons like solar panels and hermetically sealed windows. To solve their environmental angst, they required pointless studies that were endlessly time-consuming and outrageously costly along with backbreaking, outrageous environmental fees, adding many tens of thousands of dollars to the costs that were all passed on to helpless homebuyers. As these solutions drove up the price of housing, the socialists began offering subsidies to lower income earners who had been priced out of the market by the socialists' own policies. As taxpayer dollars flooded into the already constricted market, prices and rents rose still further. As socialists solved the rental problem by freezing rents, landlords stopped building new units or maintaining existing ones. When anything is scarce, it is expensive. When it is plentiful, it is cheap. Socialists have made housing scarce and, therefore, expensive. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than comparing the socialist utopia of California with the free State of Texas. Last year, more housing permits were granted in the Houston and Dallas metropolitan areas than in all of Gavin Newsom's California. The median price of a home in Texas is $345,000. In California, it is $900,000. Take healthcare. Americans once paid for their own healthcare. They could choose among policies offered by hundreds of competing providers for the one that best met their needs and circumstances. Most opted for inexpensive catastrophic plans for accidents and illnesses that could have bankrupted them, while paying for routine care out of pocket. Competition for their business kept prices low and quality high. Socialists objected to leaving the poor to an extensive network of charities. They solved our healthcare inequalities with highly subsidized and mandated coverage that leaves consumers powerless to choose their own best options while severing the connection between the patient and the payer. When somebody else is paying the bill, the patient doesn't care about price, and the payer doesn't care about quality. The result is costs spiraling out of control while patient satisfaction continues to decline. At the center of socialism is the mistaken belief that profit is waste, and if it can be removed from the equation, everything will be cheaper. That is the fundamental misconception behind Mamdani's government grocery stores. Yet, profit is not waste. Profit is the essential ingredient that spurs competition, drives innovation, demands efficiency, and craves consumer satisfaction. Take profit out of the picture, and you have just learned the difference between FedEx and the post office. Consumer electronics have steadily declined in cost while quality has steadily improved, precisely because the socialists have not yet decided to solve this market. When they do, you can expect the same high prices and decline in quality that they have already delivered in every field that they have solved, from housing to healthcare. It comes down to four simple words: Freedom works. Socialism sucks.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, no one has suffered more than Californians because of the left's war on fossil fuels. Forty years of folly are now driving energy prices out of reach for working families and driving those working families out of California. In 1980, 40 refineries served the California market, producing abundant gasoline at easily affordable prices. Mr. Latta said 14 refineries were left. His numbers are old. We are now down to nine refineries, and two more of those, Phillips in southern California and Valero in northern California, are closing by April. That will leave us just seven refineries to serve the State. Californians already pay the highest gasoline prices in the United States, averaging $4.64 a gallon as of yesterday. The same gallon costs only $2.56 in Oklahoma. When we lose these next two refineries, economists at UC Berkeley predict Californians will be paying more than $8 a gallon by the summer. Leftwing zealots like Gavin Newsom obsess over a 1-degree rise in global temperatures over the next century, but they couldn't care less that they are making it impossible for growing numbers of Californians to heat their homes or get to work. This is not only a quality-of-life issue for Californians and a cautionary tale for the rest of the country. It is a national security risk, as well. Forty military bases depend on these dwindling West Coast refineries. As California strangles production, we must increasingly rely on foreign imports from our enemies. H.R. 3109 requires the National Petroleum Council to report on ways to reverse such foolish and self-destructive policies. What has happened to California is the predictable result of bad policy made by fools. I hope the REFINER Act will shine a light on their folly and recommend ways to reverse the damage that they have caused before they can do any more harm to our Nation's prosperity and security.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, Jimmy Failla offered Democrats this pro tip: If you are going to call it the Republican shutdown, you are not supposed to get mad that it is ending. Anyone who remembers their ``Schoolhouse Rock'' knows that once the House originates an appropriation, the Senate must either amend it or pass it. Now, the House did its job on September 19 with a simple appropriation that made no policy changes. It merely kept the government operating at current levels while we finished debating priorities. Democrats deliberately blocked the Senate from acting, demanding $1.5 trillion of new spending as a ransom. Finally, thank God, eight of them put country ahead of party and voted to end this madness. Hearing the bitter recriminations from our leftist colleagues, it seems unlikely we will see much bipartisanship today, but with or without, we will reopen the government tonight and get back to addressing the challenges that confront our country.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the El Dorado Irrigation District's Centennial. The El Dorado Irrigation District (``EID'') was formed by a vote of El Dorado County residents on October 5, 1925 to secure and protect local water supplies, keep water rates reasonable, and increase the prosperity of El Dorado County; and from its nascent days of local governance and public service, EID has grown into a multi-service utility providing treated water delivery, wastewater treatment, recycled water services, hydroelectric power generation, and recreation to over 130,000 customers across 220 square miles. Visionary leadership and several pivotal moments marked EID's evolution as the primary water supplier for El Dorado County residents: In 1927, EID purchased the El Dorado Water Corporation's storage and distribution system, including key facilities and infrastructure dating back to the 1850s, such as Weber Reservoir and 70 miles of canals and laterals enabling EID to stabilize water deliveries; and In 1955, the first water deliveries from the newly completed Sly Park Reservoir (owned by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and operated through agreement by EID) reflected a significant achievement in augmenting water supply for EID customers; and From 1960 through the 1970s, EID acquired wastewater systems throughout Cameron Park and El Dorado Hills, establishing its wastewater and recycled water services; In 1999, EID purchased Project 184 from Pacific Gas & Electric, adding to its portfolio and four water supply reservoirs, 21 megawatts of clean hydroelectric power generation, and associated water rights originally developed by pioneer John Kirk in 1856; and In 2001, EID obtained Water Right Permit 21112, securing significant storage rights in Caples, Silver, and Aloha lakes as direct diversion rights from the Upper South Fork American River, which provide additional water supplies exercised at Folsom Reservoir; and In 2003, through an act of the United .States Congress, EID acquired ownership of Sly Park Reservoir, its associated water rights, Sly Park Water Treatment Plant, and all Reclamation-owned water delivery infrastructure, thereby conveying local control to EID of its largest supply reservoir, expanding recreational opportunities that drive economic growth for the region, and strengthening local water supply security. Throughout its history, EID has navigated the challenges of severe winter storms, drought, wildfire, aging infrastructure, and changing laws and regulations with resilience and a deep sense of responsibility to the land and people it serves. Over the past 100 years, EID has continuously modernized its infrastructure demonstrating a continual pursuit of innovation, reliability, and environmental stewardship; and the success of the El Dorado Irrigation District for a century is a testament to the vision of its founders, the leadership of its locally-elected Board of Directors, the dedication of its employees, and the enduring tenacity and trust of its customers. We do hereby commemorate the centennial anniversary of the El Dorado Irrigation District and honor the legacy, achievements, and future promise of this extraordinary public agency, and recognize not only 100 years of infrastructure and service, but 100 years of partnership, stewardship, and unwavering commitment to the health and prosperity of El Dorado County and surrounding Sierra Nevada communities.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, freedom of speech is the beating heart of a democracy. It is the entire reason that this building exists, so that we can talk out our differences. Free societies do not fear free speech, even when that speech is hateful or malignant or stupid. Free societies recognize that the only way to separate fact from fiction, love from hate, truth from lies, wisdom from folly, or good from evil is to put them side by side and to trust the people to know the difference. No central authority must ever be given the power to take this vital freedom away from the people or to punish anyone solely for expressing their opinions. We have based our entire form of government on the assumption that, when exposed to all sides and all viewpoints, more than half of the people are going to get it right more than half of the time. This assumption has served us well through the centuries. The left rejects this premise. For many years, leftists have told us that speech is violence and can be answered with violence. This justifies their shouting down opponents and disrupting peaceful assemblies. We have repeatedly watched leftist mobs burn our cities, loot shopkeepers, and assault people on the streets while leftist politicians egged them on. We see the growing physical attacks on law enforcement. The left used the FBI to suppress debate on critical issues ranging from COVID lockdowns to Biden family influence peddling to climate hysteria. It has called for government commissions to regulate it. In Europe, leftist governments now criminalize it. Mr. Speaker, I raise these points because a Member of this House recently made some truly vile and despicable remarks about Charlie Kirk after his brutal assassination. Her words should be loudly and universally condemned. Last night, on the House floor, a resolution of censure was brought against her in the name of Charlie Kirk to formally punish her for her hateful rhetoric, but what did Charlie Kirk say about hate speech? He said this 5 years ago: ``My position is that even hate speech should be completely and totally allowed in our country. The most disgusting speech should absolutely be protected. . . . The ACLU used to hold this viewpoint. The American Civil Liberties Union, they sued so that legitimate Nazis could march through downtown Skokie. . . . Why would the ACLU do this? Because, they said, as soon as you use the word `hate,' that is a very subjective term because then, all of a sudden, it is in the eyes or it is in the implementation of whomever has the power. So here is my belief: The more speech, the better.'' That was Charlie Kirk. We must never allow the left to become our teachers. If we ever do, we will lose our country. There will be no moral high ground, no changing of minds, and no rebirth of faith and freedom that we so desperately need. Free societies do not fear words and thoughts, even those that are hateful, ugly, evil, or obscene, because the same freedom that protects these darkest impulses of our nature also protects the right of men and women of good will to confront them, expose them, and reject them. The only true way to expose them as wrong is to do exactly what Charlie Kirk did until his last breath and with his last breath. When the left calls us Nazis, fascists, and murderers, this might be hateful and hurtful, but it is speech, nonetheless. It should be criticized in the strongest possible terms as irresponsible, inflammatory, outrageous, revolting, and wrong. It should be ridiculed and shamed. Businesses have every right to protect their reputation, and schools have every right to protect their children, but we should defend their right to say what they will and trust that the vast majority of Americans will see it for what it is. There are only two ways to resolve our differences: There is reason, and there is force. The American Founders gave us a Republic governed by reason and illuminated by freedom of speech. That is the civilization that Charlie Kirk lived for and died for. He devoted his life and ultimately gave his life to restore, strengthen, and perpetuate a free society based on discourse and reason. What a tragedy it would be if, in our outrage and grief, we were to throw it all away.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would be willing to sacrifice making a few cheap political points, he might find that we are making bipartisan progress toward the goal that he has set forth. I, for one, am glad the Democrats have finally found a tax they don't like. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we considered a resolution that altered the law by extending the authority of the President to impose tariffs by 6 months, from September 30 until March 31. I agree with the gentleman that our Constitution entrusts Congress with the power to set tariffs but that that responsibility has unwisely, and perhaps even unconstitutionally, been delegated over the years to the President. I think it is time we did revisit that issue. Yesterday, the Speaker committed personally to two things. First, he promised that the next rule resolution would reduce the extension of this authority from 6 months to 4 months, expiring on January 31 rather than March 31. The gentleman says that is not soon enough. Some of us would agree. This resolution fulfills that promise. Second, the Speaker promised to convene a working group within the Republican Conference to establish a clear and coherent congressional policy on the use of tariffs to report before the end of January. This is important because there are increasing signs of tariff-related damage to the economy--the gentleman is absolutely right on that point--and because the courts may be moving to restore the guardrails between the executive and legislative branches with respect to tariffs. I would hope he would support this resolution and thank the leadership for being responsive to those of us who fervently believe that free trade is an essential foundation of a healthy, growing, and thriving economy. As Bastiat warned nearly two centuries ago, tariffs, by definition, raise prices and reduce resources. They are a tax. This is the first time I have ever found the Democrats to be in opposition to a tax. I think they will find willing and enthusiastic outliers on our side of the aisle as this discussion moves forward. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that every producer is a consumer. Every consumer is a producer. No producer has ever benefited by scarcer resources. No consumer has ever benefited by higher prices. Yet this is the bitter fruit of protectionist policy down through the ages. Mr. Speaker, we need to have a serious and sober discussion on this issue and bring it to a resolution. The Speaker has committed to do this. For that, I thank him, and I suggest that the gentleman across the aisle thank him, too.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, the Democrats are outraged that the largest illegal mass migration in history, which they unleashed on our country, must now be followed by the largest repatriation in history. Democrats insist that they don't object to removing violent criminals, but that is a demonstrable lie. The whole point of the Democrats' sanctuary laws is to protect criminal illegal aliens from being turned over to ICE for deportation. Instead, they released them back into our communities, where many have gone on to commit even more heinous crimes. Recently, when Federal officers served a criminal warrant on a southern California marijuana farm, activists staged a riot. Officers liberated 12 minors forced to work at this facility. Eight of them were among the 465,000 unaccompanied alien children that the Democrats placed with poorly or unvetted sponsors during Biden's administration. It appears the marijuana farm was employing scores of illegal aliens to undercut their competition, in flagrant violation of U.S. labor and immigration laws. Now, let's start with some simple truths. If we don't enforce our immigration laws, we have no immigration laws. If we have no immigration laws, we have no border. If we have no border, we have no country. We have gotten a glimpse of what that means as foreign flags are waved by violent mobs setting fires, ransacking businesses, and terrorizing motorists in our sanctuary cities. What do our immigration laws actually say? They say, clearly and unambiguously, that any and every adult who illegally enters our country shall be detained. Those are the exact words of the law: ``shall be detained.'' The Democrats simply ignore it. They have a right to challenge their detention through a writ of habeas corpus. If they are charged with a crime, they have a right to a trial by jury, but at no time do they have the right to be released back into our communities. Under the law, they ``shall be detained.'' Unless they are charged with a crime, they have the right to leave detention any time they want for any country that will admit them. What they don't have is the right to remain in our country unless a judge determines otherwise. That is why the administration is expanding detention facilities, because that is what the law requires if our borders are going to mean anything. The Democrats call these concentration camps, but the detainees are free to leave for home anytime they choose. Indeed, that is the purpose, to provide temporary shelter while transportation is being arranged. Deportation is not a punishment and requires no criminal charges. It is a simple administrative act. Challenging it does not invoke a right to freely enter and stay indefinitely. You either wait here in detention or in another country that will accept you. Those are your options. Reportedly, more than a million illegal aliens have already decided to return home, an option for which our government will arrange transportation, a $1,000 stipend to help them resettle, and a right to apply for legal entry. If they wait until they are encountered by ICE, they will be taken into custody, deported, and forbidden from reentering. That is a choice. What about those who, after breaking our immigration laws to enter the country and breaking our labor laws to work here, have broken no other laws? That doesn't mean there aren't victims. For years, American families have struggled as the flood of illegal labor has taken their jobs and suppressed their wages. During Biden's 4 years, most new jobs were taken by foreigners, and Americans' real wages declined. Just 6 months into the Trump administration, most new jobs are now taken by Americans, and real wages are growing once again. That is not a coincidence. Supporting this impoverished, illegal population costs American taxpayers an estimated $160 billion a year. It flooded classrooms with non-English-speaking students, packed emergency rooms with illegals demanding care, and overwhelmed homeless shelters and food banks meant to help Americans. Worst of all, the most violent and dangerous criminal gangs in the world accompanied this population into our country and have now taken deep root in the Democrats' sanctuary cities. This is why we must enforce our immigration laws to the letter, as this administration is doing. America admits more legal immigrants under our laws than any nation on the planet and will continue to do so, but that does not give license to millions of foreign nationals to violate those same laws. That is the simple truth the Democrats refuse to acknowledge.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, as has been noted, H.R. 183 simply extends the lifetime national parks pass to the frontline public safety officers who risk their lives every day to protect our families and communities. It is the same courtesy we already extend to U.S. military members and their families, to our veterans, and to our Gold Star families. The CBO estimates its cost at about $500,000 a year. These men and women, just like those who serve our military, put their lives on the line to protect our families. It seems fitting that we should extend this small courtesy to them. It is simply a way to say thank you to them, a simple but tangible token of our gratitude and esteem. I first introduced this legislation during the George Floyd riots, when BLM rioters were chanting: ``Pigs in a blanket, fry `em like bacon,'' and leftist politicians were calling for defunding local police departments. We recently expanded it to include firefighters and wildland firefighters, to whom we owe so much for protecting our homes, towns, and communities, as well. The bill was proposed to me by Janine D'Agostini, the wife of then-El Dorado County Sheriff John D'Agostini, as a small token of appreciation for law enforcement officers who were taking so much abuse when they were trying so hard to protect our families from those who would prey upon them. Madam Speaker, it seems that, in those years, the wheel has come full circle. Once again, law enforcement personnel are the target of doxing, violent demonstrations, and leftist officials who so often seem to take the side of the lawless against the law-abiding. Our hearts go out to the many officers of ICE and CBP and their families who have recently been subjected to violence and intimidation, often fanned by the extremist rhetoric of elected officials who ought to know better. In fact, just 2 weeks ago, while ICE was serving a court-ordered warrant in Carpinteria, a sitting Member of this House doxed an ICE agent to a violent mob. That mob then took off after the agent and physically attacked him with rocks, injuring him seriously enough to require treatment in a hospital emergency room. This has to stop. We want these brave men and women and their families to know that the vast majority of the American people, the majority of this Congress, and, of course, this President stand behind them, appreciate them, and honor their work. We depend upon them not only for our safety but for the very rule of law itself. After all, without law enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no civilization, as people in sanctuary cities like Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, and New York are learning all too well once again. This bill was first introduced in 2021. It received a hearing in 2023 but was never marked up. It is long overdue, and I appreciate the House finally considering it today.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, we have had a great debate between deficits and taxes, but deficits and taxes are two sides of the same coin. To spend a dollar, Mr. Speaker, you must either tax it now or borrow it now and tax it later. Taxes and deficits are both driven by spending. This bill rescinds some of the most stupid spending in the entire Federal Government. These are the kindest cuts of all: subsidies for state media and grants to corrupt NGOs for outrageous foreign propaganda. Mr. Speaker, $9 billion comes to about $70 for an average American family. Mr. Speaker, do you think they prefer to spend that $70 on a new pair of shoes for their child or for ``girl-centric climate change programs'' in Brazil? That is the choice. Congress squanders hundreds of billions of dollars annually on destructive subsidies and useless grants like these. Let us finally take this first, small step toward the solvency of our Nation, relief for our people, and redemption for our Congress.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the big, beautiful bill is now the law, so it is no longer a theoretical discussion about what the bill might do. We are about to find out what it will do. The Democrats have succeeded in frightening Americans into lopsided opposition. On the day it passed the House, one poll registered just 29 percent public support for it compared to 55 percent opposition. This has encouraged Democrats to double down on their hysterical warnings of societal collapse, warnings they hope will continue to resonate with the public. What they don't seem to grasp is that you can't spin the economy. Everybody knows in their own lives exactly how the economy is doing and any politician who tries to tell them otherwise just looks foolish. Remember when the Democrats were telling us for years that Bidenomics was working. The only economic indicator that matters is the answer Americans give to this question: Are you better off today than you were 2 years ago? Now, Americans may never realize that this bill protected them from a 22 percent income tax increase that was set to take effect on January 1. A family making $75,000 a year won't feel its taxes rise $1,500, so it won't feel relief from this provision. We don't feel what doesn't happen. Democrats are counting on this fact while stoking class resentments over tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, but millionaires and billionaires don't work for tips. They don't get paid overtime. They don't rely on Social Security. Working families do, and for the first time, the big, beautiful bill shields these earnings from being taxed. In addition, residents of high tax States will feel a big reduction in their Federal income tax bill. Further, businesses get relief, too, those awful millionaires and billionaires, mainly in their ability to deduct 100 percent of their expenses for manufacturing purchases. That means that manufacturers of every variety will add equipment to their plants, increasing the productivity and the pay of existing workers, and adding new jobs to make that equipment. By opening America's vast energy resources, domestic production is about to rev up, a declaration of American energy independence that will echo throughout the entire economy, then add the completion of the border wall and the removal of millions of illegal aliens that the Democrats allowed into our country. Under Biden, most of the new jobs were snapped up by foreigners, and real wages fell. Under Trump, most jobs are going to Americans, and real wages for Americans are rising again, as employers are forced to pay a market rate for labor. The Democrats' mantra that millions of destitute Americans will lose their Medicaid coverage is about to be challenged by reality. The fact is that the only groups losing coverage are able-bodied grownups who refuse to get off the couch and look for work, illegal aliens who refuse to go home, and fraudsters. What happens when millions of legitimate Medicaid recipients who have been terrified by the Democrats realize that their benefits are untouched? Well, we are going to find out. Will the national debt balloon? Only if you accept the assumption that the economy will grow at an anemic 1.8 percent next year. The average 20th century growth rate, including the Depression, was 3.3 percent. A mere 3 percent growth rate will generate $4 trillion of new revenues, and that doesn't include hundreds of billions of dollars collected from imports or saved by eliminating waste identified by DOGE. How will average Americans fare? They will be paying significantly lower taxes than they are today, especially if they work for tips or overtime, are over 65, have children, or live in high-tax States. Wages, long undercut by cheap illegal labor, are already rising. Factories that make or buy equipment will be making and buying a lot more of it. No one unable to work will lose their Medicaid benefits. Their neighborhoods will be safer as criminal illegals are deported and not allowed to return. Their energy bills will be lower. If all this relief creates just average economic growth, the deficit will begin to shrink, which brings us back to the simple question that we will put to people next year: Are you better off today than you were 2 years ago? Obnoxious protests, hysterical rhetoric, and doomsday trolling won't change that simple and self-evident answer. One party will have been proven undeniably right and the other mendaciously wrong, and I think that is what the Democrats fear the most.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, this bill fulfills many of the promises we made to the American people: lower taxes, lighter regulations, a secure border, more frugal spending, and a war on waste. Throughout history, these are the policies that have produced prosperity and security, and there is every reason to believe that they will again. I remind my conservative friends who say this bill doesn't go far enough that our process was not designed to make perfect law. It was designed to make the best law that is acceptable to a majority. Judging by the narrow votes, we have pushed this bill about as far toward perfection as our process allows. The proof is not in the debate points scored today, but rather, next year when Americans will ask themselves if they are better off. I believe, because of this bill, the answer will be a resounding yes, and perhaps that is what the Democrats fear most.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, many Democrats in this House have called the L.A. riots peaceful, even while Americans watched with their own eyes as marauding mobs under foreign flags set cars on fire, threw concrete blocks at police, terrorized motorists, and vandalized and looted local shops. The Democratic vice mayor of Cudahy has called on criminal street gangs to attack Federal law enforcement. The Democratic mayor of Los Angeles said that for the riots to stop, the Federal Government had to stop enforcing Federal immigration law. You just heard the same sentiment expressed on this floor a few minutes ago. The Democratic Newsom administration has paid millions of taxpayer dollars to one of the principal organizers of these riots. I have news for the Democrats: The doctrine of nullification died with the Confederacy. States are not permitted to obstruct the enforcement of Federal law. In a humiliating slap-down of Mr. Newsom, even the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the President has the clear authority to federalize the National Guard to restore order whenever State or local officials are derelict in their duty to protect the public and enforce the law. Remember how all this started: ICE agents attempted to execute court- ordered warrants on criminal illegal aliens. When a mob intervened, ICE called for local law enforcement. The mayor reportedly stopped them from responding, and the Governor did nothing. Now, we saw during the George Floyd riots what happens when leftist officials refuse to counter violent mobs: American cities aflame, billions of dollars of damage, and 19 people killed. This resolution condemns the violence, but there is something far more sinister afoot that strikes at the very foundation of a constitutional Republic: the rule of law. As Abraham Lincoln told the Democrats long ago: ``There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law,'' and this generation of Americans is taking note.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, this bill presents a very simple proposition: Should someone who is a guest in this country and who endangers Americans, while driving drunk, be allowed to stay in this country? Republicans say: Of course, not. The Democrats say: Sure, why not. This ought to be a no-brainer, especially after so many incidents of preventable DUI traffic deaths involving foreign nationals. Then gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter) mentioned a few of the cases of aliens with multiple drunk driving offenses released time and time again and not deported, while the butcher's bill steadily grows. Why are such people allowed to remain in our country? The Democrats want it that way. In 2020, Joe Biden said that illegal aliens with DUI convictions should be allowed to stay in the United States. He said: ``You only arrest for the purpose of dealing with a felony that's committed, and I don't count drunk driving as a felony.'' When Republicans tried to enact this law in 2021, then Democratic Committee on the Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler opposed any limit to DUI convictions. He said that whether someone has 2, 6, 10, or 20 convictions for DUI 30 years ago, someone can change. Of course, that begs the question: How many have to die before they change? Through some of these debates, the Democrats have consistently supported open borders, sanctuary laws that shield violent criminals, and even modest measures like this one that say we shouldn't have to tolerate guests in this country who recklessly endanger our families. In fact, now they are telling us that in order to stop their riots, we have to stop enforcing our existing immigration laws. Madam Speaker, the American people need to take note of debates like this because none more clearly differentiate the two political parties today.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, this is the first of what needs to be many rescission bills stopping the waste of public funds. The absurd expenditures the majority leader just listed speak volumes about the scandalous corruption and carelessness of a bloated government. Every dollar comes from working American families struggling to pay both their bills and their taxes. Now, this waste is enabled by two classes of expenditures that we should foreswear forever. One is grants, cash handouts to political favorites with little accountability or oversight, whether directly or through agencies like USAID. The other is subsidies that replace the judgment of consumers with that of politicians, distorting the flow of capital from its highest and best use. As we express our outrage at this waste and take this first step to claw it back, let us remember that Congress approved all of it, and it is time that we repented before we bankrupt our country.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, if this bill fails, an average family's taxes will rise 22 percent next year, about $1,700 a year. It would be the biggest tax increase in American history. If it succeeds, working families will be able to keep more of their earnings. We will be able to complete the border wall and protect our communities from the violent cartels the Democrats allowed into our country. We will relieve pressure on Medicaid by requiring able-bodied adults on it to look for work, and we can free up America's vast energy resources. The most important economic indicator is how Americans answer this question next year: Are you better off today than you were 2 years ago? By this time next year, Americans could be enjoying one of the most explosive periods of growth in our history and all that means: secure borders, safer communities, lower taxes, abundant energy, an increase in better jobs, a higher standard of living, and a better quality of life--a big, beautiful future for all Americans.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order hour.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this week, we passed a major milestone when a majority of the entire House of Representatives signed on as cosponsors of H. Res. 166, supporting a democratic, secular, and nonnuclear Republic of Iran. This truly bipartisan and broad-based House majority of 224, consisting of 139 Republicans and 85 Democrats, endorses the general principles propounded by Iranian democracy groups, most notably the 10- point plan proposed by the National Council of Resistance of Iran. It calls for the universal right to vote; free elections; a market economy; separation of religion and state; gender, religious, and ethnic equality; foreign policy based on peaceful coexistence; peace in the Middle East; and a nonnuclear Republic of Iran. It also condemns the Iranian regime's terrorism, regional proxy war, and internal oppression. Over 4,000 parliamentarians worldwide, the majority of 33 national legislative assemblies, over 130 world leaders, and 80 Nobel laureates have endorsed these principles. I am gratified that a majority of the entire House has stepped forward to support this resolution. There are several Iranian groups fighting the Iranian dictatorship, and it will ultimately be up to the people of Iran to chart their own future, as the 10-point plan proposes. One cause should unite us all, and that is the collapse of the current regime. To this end, we have organized the Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus within the House of Representatives. This is a truly bipartisan caucus. Like the various liberation groups of Iran, we Republicans and Democrats differ and quarrel about many things, but we are solidly united in the support of the people of Iran and their struggle for their own liberation from the tyranny of the mullahs. The Iranian regime has made clear that it intends to acquire nuclear weapons and, once acquired, to use them. President Trump has made clear that this cannot be allowed to happen. I, for one, appreciate the efforts of this administration to stop that from happening without bloodshed. The Iranian regime has proven itself to be utterly untrustworthy to abide by any agreement it makes. That makes any negotiation with this regime highly problematic. There is only one solution that promises to resolve this danger without the risk of a terrible war that could claim many thousands of innocent lives, and that is the collapse of the regime from within. Opposition to the oppression of the mullahs has been simmering in Iran for many years. It is time to provide material support to help these groups liberate their country. Past administrations sent cargo pallets of cash on cargo planes to these bloodthirsty mullahs in hopes of currying their favor and cooperation. However good the intentions, the result was to help fund the oppression of the Iranian people and the export of terrorism throughout the world. I believe the time has now come to provide the same assistance, not to the oppressors of Iran, but to the people of Iran and the resistance groups actively seeking their overthrow. The overthrow of this regime from within would be the cheapest, surest, and most peaceful way to remove it as a threat to the freedom of the Iranian people, the stability of the region, and the peace of the world. That is what the Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus was organized to promote and what H. Res. 166 pledges to accomplish. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fine has been here only about 6 weeks. As you can see, he is already distinguishing himself as a vital voice for freedom abroad and for liberty at home. I couldn't be more pleased to have him here today to speak on behalf of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, Iran is one of the oldest and greatest civilizations in history. It was one of the most free, advanced, prosperous, and open countries in the Middle East just a few decades ago. Then, came the revolution of 1979, when the progress abruptly ended with the takeover by the theocratic despots who introduced a reign of terror that has gone on now for decades. Twice before, Iranians were on the verge of overthrowing this regime. In 2009, as Iranians took to the streets during the so-called Green Movement, they looked to the United States for support but got only silence. In 2016, the American Government sent $1.7 billion in cash to the mullahs on shrink-wrapped cargo pallets. In 2015, we released $150 billion more in frozen assets, all to get a nuclear agreement that Iran never honored. Today, America must stand with the people of Iran. The regime in Tehran has been crystal clear about its intent to develop nuclear weapons and, once developed, to use them. There are only two ways this is going to end. It will end either with thousands, perhaps millions, dead in a terrible war or with a successful revolution and the long-overdue collapse of this regime. The President is speaking out forcefully, and he is acting decisively. So must Congress. H. Res. 166 has 224 cosponsors, representing both political parties. It expresses support for the Iranian resistance and its vision of a free, secular, and nonnuclear Iran. I urge the leadership to bring it to the floor for a vote. Our Declaration of Independence proclaims that whenever a government becomes destructive of the natural rights of its people, it becomes their right to alter or abolish it. This critical hour has come for the people of Iran. I believe it is time for the United States to step forward with material support for the freedom movement. For every dollar this government has given over the years to this brutal dictatorship, we owe many times over to the Iranians who are desperately trying to overthrow their oppressors and restore the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. They need the direct satellite access to the internet that the regime has denied them on the ground. They need us to restore economic sanctions, as the President is doing against the regime in a renewed boycott of Iran. Mr. Speaker, decisive turning points in history do not come often. When history commands, we must answer. That answer will follow us far into the future. This time and in this hour, let the United States take a stand with the people of Iran and, by so doing, fulfill those proud words in our Liberty Bell, to proclaim liberty in all the land and to all the inhabitants thereof. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, in every election, somebody wins and somebody loses. Democracy depends on the losing side trusting that the election was a fair and accurate reflection of the will of the majority, and the winning side depends on the same perception for the legitimacy of their office. For centuries, our elections were the gold standard for the world because they were very hard to cheat in. Essential components of this process were 30-day registration, in-person election day voting, and proof of identity. In recent years, in many States, the woke left has torn down these safeguards. Mail-in ballots where there is no chain of custody, counting ballots weeks after election day, counting ballots in secret, ballot harvesting, same-day registration, turning election day into election month, and forbidding proof of identity all make cheating easy and destroy the public's confidence in the process. In many jurisdictions, the Democrats have made it clear that they intend to allow noncitizens to vote, the ultimate in foreign election interference. I have news for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: American elections are for Americans. The SAVE Act restores this vital principle by requiring proof of citizenship and identity in the Federal elections that affect every American. Americans should pay close attention to this vote, for it will reveal those who would subvert their vote to foreign nationals.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the passing of Bob Phelan of Modesto, a valued and beloved member of my congressional staff for these past 3 years. His was a remarkable life and one that should inspire every American to realize the opportunities that freedom provides. When Bob's father died, he was forced to drop out of high school to work odd jobs to support their family. For nearly 10 years, he worked as a crab cracker at Alioto's restaurant on Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco. Searching for a better life, he came to Modesto where his outgoing personality made him an ideal salesman and a manager for such well- known companies as Keebler cookies and Earl Scheib. There in Modesto, he met his wife of 31 years, Alta, and raised their family. When his son joined the Navy in the Gulf war, Bob's attention turned to politics. He became a devotee of Rush Limbaugh and began working for local candidates. He ended up starting his own political consulting firm. Ultimately, he served as a trusted adviser to state assemblymen and then-State senator and also county supervisor Tom Berryhill for nearly 15 years. When reapportionment brought my district into Stanislaus County, I was fortunate to bring him into my congressional office where he served ably as my district representative. His work ethic, his love for people, his sunny disposition, and his simple decency made him an exemplary figure in our community. He was always the picture of fitness and health until he was diagnosed last year with cancer. He never let that slow him down, and until the very end he continued to attend to his duties. He was an exemplary father, husband, grandfather, citizen, and human being, the kind of person who holds a community together even through trying times, and he will be particularly missed. Mr. Speaker, it was a great loss for our community, a great loss for our office, but most of all, a great loss for his family. We mourn his passing today. Honoring Marlee Lauffer