Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I remind my friend that the law also requires every illegal alien to be detained until their case is adjudicated, which is what the Democrats have ignored these last 4 years. This bill simply says if on top of that the illegal is charged with a crime, they need to be detained and taken off the streets. The murderer of Laken Riley was charged but not convicted. Had he been treated as the detainer law requires, he would have been deported and Laken Riley would be alive today. I am prepared to close when the gentleman is ready. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), the chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that the riot at the Capitol 4 years ago was an abomination. I have said so repeatedly whenever the subject arises. There is no excuse for it. I would also remind the gentleman what Justice Kavanaugh said in the United States v. Texas. That is where the Supreme Court ruled the States currently don't have standing to sue to enforce these laws. What he actually says was, the ruling was, it would require a change in law: elevating de facto injuries to the status of legally cognizable injuries redressable by a Federal court. That is what Justice Kavanaugh said we needed to do. That is exactly what this bill does, by the book, and yet the Democrats still oppose it. To my Democratic colleagues, I ask them: How many more laws with names attached to them do we need to pass before they take this crisis seriously? How many American citizens must die at the hands of illegal aliens before we all agree that these tragedies are all preventable, lest the name of my child or your child be the one attached to an H.R. number before the Democrats can vote ``yes'' on these commonsense bills? How much more blood must be shed before we can all join in calling for an absolute end to the Democrats' reckless open borders and sanctuary city policies that have threatened our safety, devastated our families, and are in the process of destroying our country? The American people have now spoken clearly on this issue. Enough is enough. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, our country is in dire fiscal straits. Years of profligacy under both parties are now crushing our economy under the heaviest debt in our long history. Just paying the interest on that debt now exceeds what we spend on our Nation's entire defense. History warns us that nations that bankrupt themselves aren't around very long. Now many people find hope in President Trump's creation of an unofficial Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Others propose a bipartisan fiscal commission. However, in our haste to pass the buck, let us all remember that it is Congress alone that holds the purse strings. Try as we may, we cannot escape our responsibility. Congress is the ultimate bipartisan fiscal commission because, in a very real sense, the buck starts here. The Federal Government cannot raise or spend a single dollar unless and until the House says that it can. Ultimately, this responsibility rests with us. It cannot be DOGE'd and it cannot be dodged. Fortunately, we have the ideal tools in our possession to bring spending in line with revenues if we choose to use them properly: the budget resolution and the accompanying reconciliation act. Here is how it works. Both Houses agree on a spending ceiling by a simple majority resolution. Reconciliation instructions are then sent to every House committee with the mandate to report out statutory changes to bring spending within these limits. If they fail to act, then the House Budget Committee acts in their place, and a single comprehensive bill goes to the floor for an up-or-down vote. The bill gets expedited consideration in the Senate, and when signed by the President, all the laws necessary to balance the budget are enacted together. There is one catch. It can only be used to enact the fiscal reforms necessary to implement the budget. It cannot be used for general policymaking beyond these fiscal confines. The last time this process was used as it was designed and intended was during the Republican majority led by Newt Gingrich in 1995. The result was four balanced budgets in a row that produced one of the greatest waves of prosperity our Nation as has ever seen. Tragically, in 2017, the Republican majority under Paul Ryan utterly squandered this authority. Instead of using the reconciliation process to bring mandatory spending to heel, it was abused to achieve pet political projects, first repealing ObamaCare and next for tax cuts. The first attempt resulted in a mangled mess of incomplete fiscal measures that collapsed in the Senate. The next budget year, the object was tax reform, but since it had to fall within the narrow fiscal parameters of reconciliation, most of the tax cuts could only be temporary and will soon expire. The result was no healthcare reform and only temporary tax relief. The opportunity cost was to squander our last chance to prevent the fiscal debacle that our country now faces. Last month, the American people gave Republicans a rare second chance to save our country from insolvency. We must not repeat the mistakes that have brought us here. Republican leaders in the House and Senate are, once again, proposing to use the budget and reconciliation process not as it was designed, to set spending limits and adhere to those limits, but rather to chase a variety of shiny objects including tax reform, energy development, and border security. These are all vital reforms, and they need to be enacted. Indeed, some aspects of them can be realized as a byproduct of the reconciliation process. However, that process cannot produce comprehensive policy reform. It can produce comprehensive fiscal reform at a moment when our Nation faces its greatest fiscal threat in its history. I appeal to the Speaker to follow the success of the Gingrich majority. If we repeat the mistakes of the past, then we will lose the future. We are on the threshold of a sovereign debt crisis the likes of which this Nation has never seen and that few nations have ever survived. Let us not throw away this, the last fleeting chance to avert fiscal disaster. The American people didn't save our country last month. They gave us the tools and the trust to save our country. Let us use the tools that they have given us, and let us be worthy of the trust that they have placed in us.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, most of the stories we read every day about outrageous government waste stems from a category of government funding called grants. From the $3 million grant to study how hamsters fight each other to the $3.7 million in grants given to the Wuhan virology lab that likely unleashed COVID upon the world, these are the very essence of government waste. Government grants fall into two major varieties: gifts of public money for every cause under the Sun and grants for local projects of every variety. They are all for good causes. They go to universities, companies, NGOs, civic groups, charities, local governments, State governments, and do-gooders of every kind, all promising some public benefit. Unfortunately, by their very nature, they are plagued with lax oversight, political favoritism, little followup, and questionable benefits. Indeed, much of the grant money doled out each year disappears into the salaries of various groups and agencies that will then write glowing reports of their work and apply for more grants next year in an ever-expanding litany of waste. There is never a shortage of highly paid grant application writers eager to make that case. ``Personally, I liked the university,'' says Dan Akroyd's character in ``Ghostbusters.'' ``They gave us money and facilities. We didn't have to produce anything. You have never been out of college. You don't know what it is like out there. I have worked in the private sector. They expect results.'' If the Federal Government needs a particular good or service that it can't produce itself, it should send out a request for a proposal specifying what it needs and then award a contract to the lowest responsible bidder to provide it. Then, the contractor should be held accountable for delivering that good or service. Another major class of grant recipients are local and State governments. Who can begrudge grants for law enforcement, wastewater treatment, transportation, homeless shelters, or schools? Yet, all of these grant programs beg a fundamental question: If a project exclusively benefits a local community, shouldn't it be paid for exclusively by that local community? Why should the taxpayers in Pocatello be forced to pay for sidewalks in Poughkeepsie? Robbing St. Petersburg to pay Saint Paul turns our Federal Treasury into a grab bag for local pork projects that destroys the entire concept of New Federalism. Local decisions and local money should be made and spent locally. By definition, local grants are lower priority projects that simply can't make the cut when local governments are measuring their own local needs against their own local resources. They only make economic sense if somebody else can be stuck with the tab, and that is what grants do. Money flows from politically powerless communities to politically powerful ones, often for frivolous projects that don't merit a place in local budgets. Because these Federal grants come with lots of strings attached, they are also inefficiently applied. But who cares since it is all free money? A very simple test should be applied to this class of grants. If the project exclusively benefits a local community, that local community should pay for it. With that burden also comes the freedom to spend those dollars exactly as they are most needed. Federal resources should be reserved for projects that benefit the entire country. That is the difference between the Federal interstate highway system and a local street. This is not a small matter. Between 2016 and 2020, Federal grant spending ballooned from $675 billion to $972 billion, and that is exclusive of Medicaid grants to States. That is nearly half of the annual Federal deficit right there. Weeding them out or reforming them is no easy task because a thriving political ecosystem of wealth and favor supports them. In last year's spending spree, both parties indulged themselves with 8,222 congressional earmarks, a particular subset of grant spending where individual Congressmen handpick their recipients. Here is a modest proposal for the DOGE boys: Stop the cash bonanza to every self-described deserving cause and influential community with a good grant writer. Budget writers and appropriators should look with extreme skepticism on every grant that awards money without results or that robs taxpayers in one community to pay for projects in another. It is time that we protected and reserved the Federal Treasury for the general welfare of the United States, as our Constitution envisioned.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I rise today to recognize Melinda Franca Fleming, a pillar of the Sonora community. Melinda was born on the Hoopa Indian Reservation in Northern California and grew up in a small town called Waterford. In her early adult life, she worked to balance part-time jobs and family obligations with her college work, earning an associate degree from Columbia College and later graduating Summa Cum Laude from Stanislaus State. Melinda pursued a substitute teaching job prior to earning her teaching credential from the University of the Pacific. As a full-time teacher, Melinda became quickly involved in her school community where she taught English, reading, journalism, speech, yearbook, and newspaper. She was such a positive force that she was twice recognized as teacher of the year. Melinda would later leave teaching to spend more time with her family, which now includes her husband Ken and their three children, nine grandchildren, and great-grandchild. Melinda soon continued her community service as Executive Director of the Tuolumne County Alliance for Resources and Environment (TuCARE), a non-profit promoting good stewardship of public lands. By hosting educational lands tours with regional leaders and annual conferences on forest health, Melinda has had an incalculable impact not only on local forestry, but on informing long-term policies needed to save our forests, communities, and local economies for posterity. Due to her twenty years of service, TuCARE has been recognized as a non-profit of the year, a testament to her influence and dedication. Mr. Speaker, Melinda Fleming spent her life serving her community. Whether educating and mentoring our youth or advising senior policymakers, Melinda's passion to better those around her embodies her true character as a model citizen. We are better for her service, and we know that even in retirement she will continue to serve through the shining example that is her legacy.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, free market capitalism is the most democratic possible way to organize an economy. In a free market, consumers vote every day with every dollar they spend on what they want the economy to produce, who will produce it, and what they are willing to pay for it. The prices decided every day in this never-ending plebiscite also convey vast information regarding every product, including the scarcity or abundance of the resources in it, the labor conditions that produced it, and the systems that distributed it. It is a perfect system that requires only that government protect the freedom for a willing seller and a willing buyer to make an exchange according to their own best judgment. No force is required because both act in their own self-interest. The price signals of that simple exchange, multiplied infinitely throughout the day, guide the labor and resources of an economy to their highest and best use according to every person's own individual interests, needs, and judgment. Yet, politicians love to interfere with this perfect mechanism through a variety of tools designed to direct the economy--that is, to replace the judgment of individual consumers and producers in the market with the judgment of politicians. One of the most insidious and self-destructive ways they do this is by subsidizing the things that they think consumers should buy in order to make those things more attractive. This literally stuffs the economy's ballot box, diverting resources from their highest and best economic use for consumers to the highest and best political use for politicians. Worse, it corrupts the accurate price signals that are essential for consumers to make rational decisions over allocating their own resources and thus directing overall economic output. Insurance, electric cars, mass transit, sugar, milk, solar panels, airline tickets, housing, tuition, healthcare, film production, green energy--it is hard to find a sector of the economy that isn't rife with subsidies. We also shouldn't forget the infinite subsidies that saturate our tax code. True, these subsidies make the cost of favored products cheaper--and who can begrudge cheaper healthcare, tuition, or housing?--but that is an illusion. The reality is that sellers will always accept subsidies by raising their prices accordingly. Those receiving the subsidies are somewhat better off, but everyone else is much worse off. As subsidies artificially inflate prices, more subsidies are required to ameliorate their effect in a continuing spiral. It is no coincidence that the prices in the most heavily subsidized sectors--like healthcare, housing, and tuition--are rising much faster than underlying inflation. Provide first-time home buyers with a $25,000 subsidy, and sellers accept that windfall by raising their prices on the entire housing stock. Subsidies not only cost hundreds of billions of dollars and inflate the prices of the things being subsidized, but they also misallocate resources and misdirect consumer decisions. Insurance, for example, is how markets assign a dollar value to risk. It is risky to build a house in a flood zone, and high insurance premiums reflect that reality. Subsidized insurance rates invite people to take risks that high premiums would otherwise warn them against. Accurate price signals are absolutely essential if consumers are to make rational decisions as they vote every day on what the economy should produce, and they are just as essential if producers are to know what consumer demands they most need to fulfill. Now, subsidies are so deeply ingrained in the economy that getting rid of all of them seems like a fool's errand. Every subsidy has a constituency, and the bigger the subsidy, the more powerful the constituency. Budget writers grappling with the largest Federal debt in history, and with an economy operating well below its potential, should be looking for every way to reduce, eliminate, or reform subsidies or substitute for them other mechanisms that can serve the same societal aims without doing so much damage. Here is a modest proposal to Messrs. Musk and Ramaswamy: If you want to balance the budget and improve the economy, just say no to subsidies. Not only will such a hunt save hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, but it will also reduce the overall cost of the things being subsidized and reinvigorate the economy by restoring the flow of capital to its most productive use.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and service of El Dorado County Supervisor John Hidahl, who passed away on November 2, 2024, at the age of 73. John Hidahl was born and raised in California's Central Valley and graduated from Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo with a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering. Throughout his successful career, he worked at Aerojet for 31 years and Northrop Grumman for 10 years, where he filled various roles, such as a rocket test engineer, the director of engineering, and the chief systems manager. Coming from a farming family, Supervisor Hidahl was also the Chairman of Hidahl Ranch, where he helped manage the almond and walnut farm. Outside of his career success, Supervisor Hidahl tirelessly worked to improve the community around him. His motto of service before self is evident in the various areas where he volunteered and served his community. Among his many other roles in the El Dorado Hills community, he served for 33 years on the County Water District, 36 years on the Area Planning Advisory Committee, and 23 years on the Community Council. Supervisor Hidahl was elected twice to the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, where he served as the District 1 Supervisor while advocating for a balanced budget, open space preservation, and housing options for seniors. Supervisor Hidahl was also engaged with his community outside of his formal roles, as he also actively supported the boy and girl scouts along with groups that serve the county's homeless population. In his spare time, Supervisor Hidahl enjoyed spending time with his family, traveling, and being outdoors. Supervisor Hidahl is survived by his wife Eileen, their five daughters, and their 10 grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, Supervisor Hidahl was a devoted public servant who loved his country, his county, and his community. He will be deeply missed by all those who knew him. It is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor his memory.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and service of The Honorable Nancy Leo, who passed away on July 29, 2024, at the age of 64. Judge Leo was born and raised in California, where she attended El Camino Real High School. After graduation, Judge Leo attended California State University, Northridge, where she earned a bachelor's degree in marketing in 1981. Afterwards, her love of the law led her to Santa Barbara College of Law to earn her Juris Doctorate before passing the California Bar in 1990. Judge Leo began her distinguished legal career at the Stanislaus County District Attorney's office. In 1996, she was elected to the Stanislaus County Municipal Court and two years later, she was elevated to the Stanislaus Superior Court, where she primarily presided over criminal cases. Despite the challenging nature of these cases, Judge Leo was known for her thoughtful, kind, and deliberate approach, treating everyone in her courtroom with the utmost respect. Her commitment to justice in Stanislaus County earned her the respect of her colleagues on the bench, court staff, and community justice partners. Judge Leo's passions extended beyond the courtroom, as she was also an avid music lover, particularly enjoying The Beatles, Frank Sinatra, and Dean Martin. Additionally, she loved baking her famous Christmas cookies for her friends and family. Throughout her life, Judge Leo developed a love for Hawaii, which she considered a second home. She travelled frequently to visit the island of Oahu, where she married her husband, Douglas Leo. Judge Leo is survived by her husband, stepdaughters, and beloved grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, Judge Nancy Leo spent her life honorably serving the community in her judicial capacity for over 27 years. It is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor her memory.

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 H.R. 5717.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in just 3\1/2\ years, President Biden and his border czar, Kamala Harris, have allowed more than 7.6 million unvetted, illegal aliens into the United States. That is the equivalent of adding an entirely new State almost the size of Arizona, our 14th largest State, with nine congressional districts. Those not engaged in criminal activities are almost entirely destitute and are overwhelming public schools, hospitals, food banks, public housing, and social services. This began the very first day of this administration, when Biden and Harris rescinded the remain in Mexico policy, ordered construction on the border wall halted, and literally instructed ICE to stop enforcing court-ordered deportations. Today, ICE remains hog-tied in discharging its duty to remove even criminal illegal aliens from our midst. Before they can do so, they are now required to first develop a full profile of the criminal and to identify mitigating circumstances, such as if the criminal has high blood pressure or is a caregiver. A former top ICE official told the Judiciary Committee that the Biden-Harris policies have made immigration enforcement more dangerous, more difficult to carry out, and less efficient overall. The flood of illegal mass migration at our southern border has thinned the ranks of ICE officers available to enforce laws within the interior because so many have been siphoned off to process illegals being allowed into our country. When constituents ask me how this could be happening to their communities, I have to remind them that if they voted for Biden and Harris, this is exactly what they voted for, and if that surprises them, they weren't paying attention. In 2019, Kamala Harris told the ACLU she would slash funding for immigration detention and close private immigration detention centers. As ABC News has been forced to confess, Harris did, in fact, endorse taxpayer funding to provide transgender surgeries for illegal aliens detained in the United States. Americans are beginning to realize the severe danger to public safety posed by cities and States that refuse to notify ICE so that dangerous criminals can be turned over to them for deportation once they have served out their sentences, as the law requires. Instead, the woke left releases these criminals back onto our streets and into our communities to prey on new victims. Instead of ICE being able to take these criminals into custody while they are disarmed and in custody, ICE agents, instead, must track them down and confront them when they are armed and at large. This is the very essence of the sanctuary policies that so many Democrats, including Biden and Harris, have supported and facilitated. Although current law already prohibits jurisdictions from refusing to cooperate with Federal immigration officials, jurisdictions controlled by leftist officials continue to do so. This bill changes that. The growing list of Americans victimized by criminal aliens released back onto our streets, in defiance of Federal law, is truly appalling. According to ICE, Cook County, Illinois, saw law enforcement release 1,070 criminal aliens and immigration violators in fiscal year 2019 despite requests by ICE to notify the agency before they are released from local custody. One of those criminals was a Mexican national who had been arrested for theft. After his release from custody, that illegal alien lured a 3-year-old girl into a McDonald's bathroom and sexually assaulted her. Had Chicago authorities cooperated with Federal officials, that man, a convicted aggravated felon who previously had been deported, could have been in ICE custody and instead removed to Mexico. In January 2023, a 27-year-old illegal alien from Mexico was allowed to remain in the United States through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program despite his arrest for domestic violence in New Jersey. Local law enforcement ignored an ICE detainer and released him, where he went on to murder his girlfriend and a married couple. Without this legislation, we should brace ourselves for what is to come. In 2019, Kamala Harris committed to ending ICE detainers. H.R. 5717 would prevent any jurisdiction from ever doing so again. Specifically, this bill renders sanctuary jurisdictions ineligible to receive certain taxpayer dollars that would bankroll illegal immigration in American communities. By denying certain Federal funding to jurisdictions that prohibit or restrict their cooperation with Federal immigration officials, the bill encourages sanctuary jurisdictions to end their anti-enforcement policies in favor of working with the Department of Homeland Security. Today, Democrats will present far-fetched hypotheticals about how Republicans want to strip funding from program after program. On the contrary--to continue to receive these funds, the jurisdiction would simply need to follow existing law. Isn't that what a nation of laws is all about? It is absurd that a bill like this is even necessary. As we have seen time and time again, far-left jurisdictions would prefer to release dangerous criminal aliens back onto American streets than to deport them once they have served their sentence, as Federal law requires. This bill helps end this dangerous and tragic absurdity. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota), the author of this bill.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, every grant the Federal Government makes to States and localities comes with conditions that they must fulfill in order to receive those funds. This measure simply says to get Federal funds, you must obey Federal law. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am ready to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Last week, the House Judiciary Committee received chilling testimony from Sheriff Mike Boudreaux of the rural Central Valley county of Tulare, California. What he told us should be an earsplitting alarm for every town and every city in America. In the sanctuary State of California, the criminal cartels have sunk deep roots throughout the State. In his county alone, a single assassin for the Sinaloa cartel admitted to over 25 murders. The sheriff said: That he was responsible for a certain area of California and there were many other assassins assigned by cartels in California, throughout California, that were responsible for those areas. Then he spoke to California's sanctuary State law. He told of a reign of terror committed by an illegal migrant over a 24-hour period in his county: a murder in Visalia, attempted murders an Exeter and Tulare, as well as shootings in Pixley, Sultana, and Visalia and an armed robbery in Exeter. Here is the fine point of the matter: 2 days before this nightmare unfolded, this monster had been arrested, and ICE had requested a detainer so that they could deport him. As Sheriff Boudreaux testified again: Due to California's sanctuary State law, the Sheriff's Office was legally prohibited from recognizing or honoring the detainer of this would-be murderer and we were further prohibited from notifying ICE of his release from jail. This is the dystopian world the Democrats have created in California with their sanctuary law which was supported at the time by then-State Attorney General Kamala Harris. As Sheriff Boudreaux told us: Much of what I speak of in regard to California and the violence, as well as the human trafficking, it is mirrored in other States all throughout the United States. The cartel wants to control these migrant towns and truly lead the same way that they are in other countries, specifically in Mexico. He estimated that well over 50 percent of the crimes that he is dealing with in his county are now being committed by illegal immigrants, but since he can't report or confirm these numbers, the official number is zero. I might add that the NYPD estimates that 75 percent of the crimes that they are now dealing with in Manhattan are committed by illegal migrants. If it has not come to your neighborhood yet, Mr. Chairman, it soon will if we continue down the path that we are on. Mr. Chairman, the American people have precious little time to awaken and stop this insanity before it engulfs their towns, neighborhoods, and communities if it hasn't already. In the meantime, measures like this will assure that policies like this never again are allowed to threaten our families. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1455, I call up the bill (H.R. 7909) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that aliens who have been convicted of or who have committed sex offenses or domestic violence are inadmissible and deportable, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 7909.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just last week, the Judiciary Committee heard from moms whose daughters were brutally assaulted and murdered by illegal aliens who have been welcomed into our country by President Biden and Vice President Harris. The statistics tell us how broad this threat has become, but the individual cases tell us how deep and painful it is. It seems that every few days we learn of little girls and young teens or moms abducted by illegals, raped by illegals, and murdered by illegals, none of whom have any right to be here, and all of whom have been trafficked into our country by this administration's policies. These entirely preventable tragedies will continue as long as these policies continue. The Democrats often talk about the war on women over abortion or employment policy, but it seems my colleagues couldn't care less about allowing into our country a flood of sexual offenders, domestic violence offenders, and child abusers, and allowing them to stay indefinitely, free from any fear of deportation. When these monsters commit these ghastly acts and their grief- stricken moms appear before our committee, the Democrats put on their best long faces, assure everyone how much my colleagues on the other side of the aisle grieve with the families, and then argue to continue precisely the same policies that have produced this nightmare in the first place. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, removes any loopholes in current law and requires that illegal aliens who commit sex offenses or domestic violence are not to be allowed into this country anymore and must be immediately removed from our country when they are found, period. The Democrats say this is duplicative of existing law. If that is true, why do they oppose it? The Democrats say it is unnecessary. Tell that to the growing number of families who are paying the butcher's bill for these open-border policies. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, Citizens Against Government Waste has released its ``2024 Congressional Pig Book,'' documenting the fiscal rot that is taking place with congressional earmarks. CAGW documents 8,222 congressional earmarks in last year's appropriations bills. That is up more than 11 percent in a single year, costing taxpayers $22.7 billion, the fifth highest amount of earmark spending since CAGW began tracking it in 1991. I thank Tom Schatz and his staff for continuing to shine the light on one of Congress' most tawdry and wasteful practices, in which individual Congressmen bypass merit-driven competition and instead personally direct spending to pet projects in their own districts or to favored supporters. CAGW notes that ``Earmarks continue to provide the most benefit to the most powerful legislators. In fiscal year 2024, the 90 members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, making up only 17 percent of the Congress, were responsible for 42.2 percent of the earmarks and 35.2 percent of the money.'' One House Appropriations member grabbed 13 earmarks, costing taxpayers a quarter of a billion dollars. Although all spending bills start in the House, and the voters elected a Republican House for that reason, Democrats received three- quarters of the earmarks, 8,571 to the Republicans 2,931. They are all bad, though. Since the Magna Carta, it has been a settled principle of good governance that the power to spend money should be separate from the power to appropriate it. That is at the heart of our constitutional separation of powers: The President spends money but cannot appropriate it, and Congress appropriates money but cannot spend it. Earmarks combine these two powers, and the inevitable result is waste, logrolling, porkbarrel spending, and, ultimately, corruption. It is no coincidence that so many of the congressional scandals involving political corruption or laughably absurd projects are the result of earmarks. Worthy projects in open competitive bidding don't need earmarks. They rise or fall on their own merits. If there is such a thing as a good earmark, the price to be paid is all of the bad ones, and that is a high price, indeed. Members can and should advocate for their districts and make the case for projects they deem worthy of the money that Congress has appropriated. The problem with earmarks is blurring these two roles and having individual Members both advocate and decide. Many say they don't trust this President and his deputies to administer these funds appropriately and evenhandedly, and I share that sentiment. If you don't trust the President to administer the funds that we appropriate, then don't give him the money. We hear that earmarks simply ensure that local governments get a fair break. No. What they actually do is turn the Federal budget into a grab bag for local pork spending by the most powerful Members of Congress and undermine the central tenet of federalism that local projects should be financed by local communities and Federal spending reserved for the Nation's general welfare. When a local government proposes an earmark, what is it saying? It is saying the project is so low on its priority list that they don't dare spend their own taxpayers' money. Yet, they are perfectly happy to have taxpayers in other communities foot the bill. The result is a long list of dubious projects that rob St. Petersburg to pay St. Paul for projects that St. Petersburg doesn't benefit from and that St. Paul doesn't deem worthy enough to spend its own money on. Finally, it is said that earmarks can grease legislation by buying off the votes of individual Members. Add a few local projects for that Member, and suddenly, a bill he would never vote for on its merits becomes a local imperative, overriding his sound judgment. Explain to me exactly how that is a good thing. Paying interest on the national debt now exceeds our entire defense spending for the first time in our history, and history warns us that countries that bankrupt themselves aren't around very long. If we are going to avoid the terrible fate of so many nations before ours, we have to end congressional profligacy, and earmarks are the most glaring example of that waste. Mr. Speaker, I thank Citizens Against Government Waste for continuing to expose the excesses and inequities of earmarks and to hold accountable those politicians from both parties who are responsible.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in American history, a Presidential administration is trying to jail its opponent, and not just any opponent, but a former President of the United States. To pursue this objective, Mr. Biden's Attorney General approved an unprecedented armed raid on a former President's home, despite strenuous objections by career officials and the local field office that normally would have had jurisdiction. He then created a new position without the constitutional requirement of congressional action or Senate confirmation. He filled that position with one Jack Smith, despite the central role Smith had played in the IRS scandal that targeted and harassed Tea Party volunteers and despite a long history of prosecutorial misconduct. The cooked-up charge was the mishandling of classified documents. Shortly thereafter, we discovered that as Vice President, Joe Biden had done the same thing, yet, as President, Mr. Trump had absolute authority to declassify materials at will, as Vice President Joe Biden did not. As President, Mr. Trump had absolute authority to determine what records to keep upon leaving office. As Vice President, Joe Biden did not. Yet, the Biden administration's appointed special counsel in the Biden case concluded that although Biden had ``willfully retained and disclosed classified materials . . . when he was a private citizen,'' criminal charges were not warranted because he is ``a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.'' Well, the principal justification for this glaring double standard in the handling of these two cases was the interview with Mr. Biden, yet all we have is the unverified transcript to determine the validity of this otherwise inexplicable decision. Mr. Biden cannot claim executive privilege. This was not a policy discussion, and he has already released the transcript. It is vital that our committee know if the transcript is complete and whether it accurately portrays the circumstances under which that decision was made. Two Trump officials have been sentenced to prison for their failure to honor congressional subpoenas, and that case was far weaker than this one because at the time, Congress was not exercising oversight or considering legislation. In this case, the Judiciary Committee is doing both. Yet once again, we have this glaring legal double standard at play. I expect the Attorney General to thumb his nose at the citation. We have come to expect that of him. However, the House Judiciary Committee is charged with defending and upholding the rule of law and its fundamental principle of equal justice under the law. If we are going to restore them, this resolution is an indispensable step that we must take today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley), my colleague and neighbor.