Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate yesterday on the so-called War Powers Resolution, fundamental misunderstandings surfaced that I think need to be addressed. The first misunderstanding is that the justification for the attack that killed Soleimani was that he was an evil terrorist responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans. Well, there are a lot of evil terrorists out there, and that does not give the President authority to launch attacks on foreign countries to kill them. But what did give the President authority in this case, was the fact that Soleimani was acting as an armed combatant against U.S. forces in a war zone in which the Congress had authorized the President to take military action through the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq in 2002. Now, I hate to shock my woke colleagues, but killing active enemy combatants is what war is all about, and it is a war that Congress started with that act. That act of Congress provides: ``The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.'' The very nature of this authority includes combating hostile militia and armed proxies acting within Iraq against American forces. That is exactly what the President did. The authorization to use military force did not end with the defeat of Saddam Hussein any more than the President's military authority in Japan and Germany ended with the defeat of Hirohito and Hitler. In those cases, the President's authority didn't terminate until 1952 and 1955, respectively, and the President's military authority in Iraq remains in effect until the President and Congress terminate it. Now, the second misunderstanding is that the President's action was an attack on Iran. It most certainly was not. It was carried out in the theater of war defined by Congress against a combatant who was commanding hostile forces against American troops. Not only did the President act entirely within his legal authority as Commander in Chief, but within his moral responsibility to protect American military and diplomatic personnel and American citizens in Iraq. The third misunderstanding is that the War Powers Act is applicable in this circumstance. The War Powers Act governs only those circumstances when the President responds without congressional authority to an attack upon the United States, its territory or possessions, or its Armed Forces. In this case, the President already had congressional authority. The fourth misunderstanding is that the attack on Soleimani was equivalent to President Obama's attack on Libya. The two are entirely different matters. The attack on Libya had no congressional authorization and the War Powers Act did not apply because Mr. Obama's military attack was not in response to an attack on the United States, its territory or possessions, or its Armed Forces. It was an entirely unprovoked attack, entirely unauthorized and, accordingly, it was entirely illegal. I think as we go forward, we need to get back to some basic, fundamental understandings about the constitutional parameters of war powers. The American Founders made a sharp distinction between starting a war and waging a war for some very good reasons. They understood that this most solemn and lethal decision should not be entrusted to one individual whose authority would be greatly augmented by it. The decision to start a war was given exclusively to Congress to assure that every voice in the country was heard, and that Congress, once having taken that stand, would be obligated to put the resources of the country behind that war and those fighting it. But once the war has begun, the Founders wanted a single Commander in Chief directing it with clear and unambiguous authority. There is no surer path to military disaster than having 535 squabbling prima donnas second-guessing every decision being made. Thus, the President can wage war but cannot declare it, and the Congress can declare war but cannot wage it. The Founders debated these principles thoroughly during the Constitutional Convention. They recognized that the President did need certain residual military power to repel an attack when Congress couldn't act. And I believe the War Powers Act faithfully defines these circumstances and establishes a framework to contain them. But the War Powers Act does not give the President the authority to launch military attacks except in response to a direct attack on our country, nor can it limit the President's authority as Commander in Chief once Congress does authorize war. I believe the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq was a colossal mistake. It created a dangerous power vacuum. It was never supported with the full resources of the United States, and it was without provocation. But there should be no rewriting of history here. It might have been George W. Bush who advocated for the war and Bush, Obama, and now President Trump who have waged it, but it was Congress' adoption of the AUMF that formally started it. And once started, only the President can wage it. President Trump inherited this mess and history will judge how well he handles it. Certainly, in this instance, the President not only had clear and unambiguous authority to order the attack, he had a moral imperative to do so. What is crystal clear from the debate yesterday is that if the Democrats had had their way, Soleimani would be alive today, and the attack on American troops that he was in the final stages of planning would have unfolded. We would likely, today, be mourning very many American casualties. If the President, knowing that this attack was coming and in full possession of the opportunity and the authority to stop it, had taken the Democrats' advice and done nothing, he would have been deeply culpable for the loss of these Americans. It is shocking to me, and perhaps to the country as well, that even in hindsight this is the course the Democrats have made clear that they prefer. That brings me to the nature of the resolution that the House passed yesterday. The separation of war powers between the legislative and executive branches has been badly blurred in recent decades, and I do believe that we need to reestablish not only the constitutional principles that separate the declaring of war from the waging of war, but also the American tradition that we only go to war when we have been attacked. When we must go to war, we have the utmost obligation to put the entire might and resources and attention of the Nation behind it, and to get it over with just as quickly as possible. Now, that is a legitimate debate to have, but that is not what the House did yesterday. Yesterday, it deliberately and recklessly undermined the position of the United States Government and the United States Armed Forces that we sent to Iraq, shredding the tradition that politics stop at the water's edge. In a perilous moment, the House refused to stand behind the war that it had authorized in 2002, refused to protect the men and women that it placed in harm's way, and it gave a hostile foreign power a major propaganda victory. That is yet another stain upon the honor of this House, and one which should be deplored and condemned through the ages to come. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, our Constitution is clear that only Congress can start a war, but only the President can wage it. Congress started this war with the AUMF in 2002. It is still in effect. The Founders didn't want one individual getting us into a war; but once in it, they didn't want 535 squabbling prima donnas second- guessing every decision on the battlefield. President Trump needed no other reason to order the attack that killed Soleimani in Iraq, beyond the simple fact that he was acting as an enemy combatant against U.S. forces in a war zone in which the Congress had authorized the President to take military action. I happen to believe the AUMF was a colossal mistake, but this resolution doesn't correct that mistake. It compounds it by deliberately undermining the position of the United States Government and the Armed Forces that we sent to Iraq at a perilous moment, which makes it not only unconstitutional, but disgraceful.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, nullifying a national election requires an overwhelming case of high crimes supported by indisputable evidence that the vast majority of the Nation finds compelling. Now, article I is a made-up crime called abuse of office. It does not charge that the President broke any law, but that Congress doesn't like the way he lawfully discharged his constitutional duties. This would reduce the Presidency to that of a minister serving at the pleasure of Congress, destroying the separation of powers at the heart of our Constitution. Article II is another made-up crime called obstruction of Congress. It means the President sought to defend his constitutional rights and those of his Office. This removes the judiciary from our Constitution and places Congress alone in the position of defining the limits of its own powers relative to the President. Our Bill of Rights guarantees every American the right to confront their accuser, to call witnesses in their defense, to be protected from hearsay, and to defend these rights in court. The Democrats have trampled them all in their stampede to impeach. Even in this kangaroo court, the Democrats' hand-picked witnesses provided no firsthand knowledge that the President linked aid to action--in fact, two witnesses provided firsthand knowledge that he specifically ordered no quid pro quo. Any case that charged no actual crime and offered no legally admissible evidence would be laughed out of court in a heartbeat. That is the case before us today. It would redefine the grounds for impeachment in such a way that assures that it will become a constant presence in our national life. Now we know just how reckless is the Democrats' chant of ``resist by any means necessary.'' This is a stunning abuse of power and a shameless travesty of justice that will stain the reputations of those responsible for generations to come.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Supervisor Laurence Crabtree, who is retiring after 50 years of service as an indispensable steward of our forests. Laurence's passion for forest service began in his teenage years, when he worked as a smokechaser in a youth employment program at Clearwater National Forest in 1969. After working in a variety of seasonal positions as a firefighter, timber cruiser, and forester, Laurence spent twenty years as a District Timber Management Officer and District Resource Officer on Lassen National Forest. After serving as a District Ranger at Humbolt-Toiyabe and Modoc National Forests, followed by two years at Plumas National Forest, Laurence took his skills to my congressional district, serving as Forest Supervisor of the Eldorado National Forest for more than six years. Indeed, Laurence has spent his life as an ardent servant of our forests and the millions of Americans who visit them each year. Laurence was an explorer of our lands just as he was a protector, and his list of accomplishments speaks volume to his work. He discovered a rare moth in the Sierras that had not been seen for 140 years, then discovered a new moth in Nevada, aptly named Pelochrista crabtreei. He was awarded a Proclamation of Commendation from the Lassen County Board of Supervisors for his community involvement as the Big Valley District Ranger, as well as a Quality Step Increase for ``furthering the trust and collaborative relationships with Central Nevada Counties and Tribes.'' One of his proudest accomplishments was dedicating the Olympic Training Center at Echo Summit in El Dorado County as a California Historical Landmark to honor the special site used for training by America's top athletes. As wildfires ravaged nearly every corner of California, Laurence was at the forefront of making our forests environmentally sound and recreationally accommodating. Following the 2014 King Fire, Laurence's role as an Agency Administrator contributed immensely to the King Fire Restoration Project, which quickly began a complete reforestation process. His work over the past six years in particular has led Eldorado National Forest to become a regional leader in timber production and hazardous fuel treatment. He has received multiple certificates of merit for excellence in leadership and management, highlighting his devotion to protecting the communities and unique wildlife that make our western forests so special. Laurence's passion for serving his community extends beyond the forests. In both California and Nevada, Laurence served on school boards and chambers of commerce. Now, Laurence and his wife Denice will be returning to Big Valley, where he will undoubtedly continue his active involvement with his community while also spending more time with his family. Gifford Pinchot was explicit in his first maxim for foresters, ``A public official is there to serve the public and not run them.'' Laurence Crabtree has done just that for 50 years, and I thank him for decades of devotion to safeguarding our national forests for the use and enjoyment of the American people.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, history warns us that nations which either cannot or will not secure their borders simply aren't around very long. And if we will not enforce our immigration laws, our borders mean nothing. America ceases to become a unique nation and simply becomes a vast international territory between Canada and Mexico. Now, I understand agriculture's need for labor, especially in so tight a labor market as our blossoming Trump economy has created. Years ago, the Bracero program provided a means for seasonal laborers to come to America, be protected under our laws, and provided with a powerful incentive to return in the form of a significant financial deposit when the season ended, but that program can only work when our immigration laws are being uniformly enforced. Instead, this bill ignores enforcement and rewards anyone who has illegally crossed our borders, both with amnesty and a special path to citizenship, as long as they claim to have worked part-time in the agriculture sector for the last 2 years. It then rewards them with a pathway to citizenship, allowing them to cut in line in front of every legal immigrant who has obeyed our laws, waited patiently in line, and done everything our country has asked. As a practical matter, we can expect claimants will have very little or even no scrutiny to the veracity of their claims. We can expect that, once achieving amnesty, they will then leave the fields for higher-paid employment in direct competition with American workers. And we can expect a new wave of illegal immigrants coming here to take their places with the full expectation that they too will ultimately be rewarded with amnesty and citizenship. There is a much better way to resolve this issue. Secure our borders, uniformly enforce our immigration laws, and provide foreign seasonal labor with the opportunity to work and the incentive to return to their countries when that work is done. And if they wish to become American citizens, we ask that they follow the law, as millions of legal immigrants have done throughout our history.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this measure. A collection of minor, flawed bills was presented to our Subcommittee on Water, Oceans and Wildlife a few months ago, and instead of correcting the flaws, they have simply been repackaged and rebranded as a landmark climate change bill. The net result is the climate is going to continue to change and our country will be about $1.5 billion a year poorer for it. Take, for example, H.R. 1023 included in this package, it creates a new Federal fishery monitoring program for the Great Lakes Basin. Well, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service already conduct similar fishery studies right now. Instead, this bill would task an agency that has little experience in fishery, science, and management, the U.S. Geological Survey, to do basically the same thing. And this is especially baffling since we are currently paying NOAA some $28 million a year for ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes research, and another $2.9 million for interjurisdictional fisheries grants, which could be used for Great Lakes management and science. Another measure is H.R. 2405, this reauthorizes NOAA's Sea Grant Program, bumping it $10 million higher than currently appropriated, and then increasing that authorization by nearly 5 percent annually thereafter. This program is one that the President rightly sought to eliminate in his budget in order to free up funding for NOAA to complete its most important core functions. Another bill in this package purports to modernize and enhance the Coastal Zone Management Act. This is my favorite. What it actually does is to place the seaside resort of Washington, D.C., into the Coastal Zone Management Act. Now, I don't deny that Washington is a world-class swamp, but it is not a coastal community, and placing it in a coastal zone doesn't make it one. What it does do is to rob legitimate coastal communities of funding and influence, and it opens the door to further encroachments as more and more inland cities seek to claim coastal zone status. Another measure thrown into this package is H.R. 3115. This bill, which never had a hearing and was rushed through markup, costs over $631 million and inserts Federal priorities into coastal zone management, which counters the CZMA's original intention of assessing coastal management needs according to the unique and diverse conditions and desires of the communities along our coast. Another measure thrown into this package is H.R. 1314, which reauthorizes the Integrated Ocean Observing System. Now, this system is good. It provides data to coastal communities and local fishermen on weather conditions. It is critical. So far, so good. But then it follows up on very good public policy with very bad fiscal policy by providing open, limitless authorization of funds for the program. It should be amended to set specific authorization limits, as Senate versions of the measure have done. Madam Chair, I fail to see how this package would provide new benefits to coastal States other than, apparently, the coastal community of Washington, D.C. Further, NOAA already does most of the work that this package claims to authorize. This is duplicative and wasteful of our resources at a time when the Nation is running dangerously high deficits. And, as I said, it is going to require another $1.4 billion of Federal spending; that is about $11 from the earnings of every family in the country. I think that is an expensive press release for something that does so little that we are not already doing. And, with that, I would ask that the bill be rejected.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1472, offered by our colleague, Congressman Smith of Nebraska, would redesignate the Homestead National Monument of America to simply the Homestead National Historical Park. Congress authorized this commemoration in 1936 after acquiring the site of the Daniel Freeman homestead. It was set aside as a lasting memorial to the settlers who built the American West as a result of the Homestead Act of 1862 and its successors. In total, 207 million, or 10 percent, of all land in the United States was settled under the Homestead Act. The name of the monument with the redundant qualifier ``of America'' has made it an anomaly within the National Park system. This bill simply removes that redundancy and conforms more clearly with the naming customs of the National Park Service. Redesignating the unit as a national historical park will further clarify the unit's characteristics in keeping with the modern designations that the Park Service maintains. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), the author of the measure who brings it to the floor today.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the other gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the author of this bill.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Clay for this legislation and for his being amenable to changes that make this bill one that every Member can support. This legislation raises money through the voluntary purchases of a special stamp that in turn funds valuable conservation efforts of iconic global species such as tigers, elephants, rhinos, great apes, marine turtles, and their habitats. Anyone who wants to help these efforts can do so by purchasing these stamps; a small surcharge for which is then deposited in the Multinational Species Conservation Funds. These funds in turn provide grants for conservation work around the globe. To date, over $5.7 million have been raised by this low-key and entirely voluntary effort. While the authority to sell these popular stamps has expired, the stockpile of 49 million stamps still exists. Mr. Clay accepted amendments to allow the stockpile to be depleted before new stamps are printed that prevents waste and protects taxpayers. International conservation of these important species is a shared goal of both Democrats and Republicans, and this bill is a very good example of that seemingly rare opportunity for all of us to come together for the benefit of wildlife, their habitat, and, of course, the American people who enjoy both for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let's be very clear: Killing a shark for its fin while throwing away the rest of the carcass is contemptible; it is immoral; it is wrong; and it has been illegal and banned in the United States since 1993. American fishermen don't do this. American fishermen are the good guys in this story. This bill does something very different. It requires American fishermen to throw away the fins when they kill a shark. That is just as wasteful, just as despicable, and it is not going to stop foreign bad actors. It will kill American fishing. It will destroy the livelihoods of Americans who have followed the law and who are responsibly accounting for their entire catch. It is not going to help our domestic shark populations. They are doing quite fine. NOAA currently manages 42 shark species, along with the commercial and recreational shark fisheries. None of these 42 species in the Atlantic are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. As I pointed out earlier, the most recent results of the NOAA fisheries' longest running shark survey show our domestic populations increasing, with scientists capturing and tagging more than ever before. It is a shame that we are here to blame American fishermen, who are following all of the laws and doing everything right. And remember this: Under H.R. 737, sharks can still be legally caught in U.S. waters; however, they will be forced to cut off the fins and throw them into the garbage. Ask yourself: Is this right? Congress has long supported the full utilization of landed seafood in order to obtain the maximum economic value of our limited marine resources, all consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This legislation will result in little more than wasted resources. The administration opposes this legislation. It writes: We cannot support the Shark Fin Sale Elimination Act because of the bill's negative impact on U.S. fishermen that would outweigh its minimal benefit to shark conservation. This would hurt U.S. fishermen who currently harvest and sell sharks and shark fins in a sustainable manner under strict Federal management. Industry opposes this legislation. They write: H.R. 737 would effectively put an end to all shark fishing. The revenue realized from fin sales can comprise up to 50 percent of a large coastal shark's value. Requiring the discard or destruction of shark fins is also wasteful, both as a food resource and an economic resource that helps sustain rural coastal fishing communities here in America. It has long been the policy of Congress to encourage full utilization of land and catch in order to obtain the maximum economic value of our limited marine resources. And, finally, scientists oppose this legislation. Two of the leading scientists in the field write: If the shark fin trade in the United States were completely eliminated, the direct impact on reducing global shark mortality would likely be insignificant. The elimination of United States-supplied fins in world markets would open the door to increased market share for illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing nations not practicing sustainable shark fishing, including those that have not yet prohibited finning. This legislation follows a familiar theme we hear from the other side: Blame Americans first for the world's problems. This legislation is the definition of a solution in search of a problem. I am sorry that some of my Republican colleagues have been convinced to support this legislation, but I hope that today's debate has shined a bit of truth on the issue. Let me just quote from the humane society quickly. Their reasoning for this legislation is that: ``The United States has a robust market for shark fins, many of which likely were obtained through finning.'' Let me state again, ``likely were obtained.'' This is the science and data that we are using to support this legislation, ``likely were obtained.'' Mind you, we make up less than 1 percent of the global market. Shark finning will continue across the rest of the globe, and it will continue to focus on the market in South and Southeast Asia. We will have lost our ability to have managed our resources and support our local fishing industries. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this misguided and misconceived legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about the letter signed by 150 scientists in support of this bill. We ought to point out that only 10 of those 150 scientists actually are scientists with expertise in shark fisheries. But every one of the scientists who signed the Wildlife Conservation Society letter in opposition to this bill is recognized as an active professional shark researcher and expert in the field. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, my friend from California says that, well, California's ban hasn't resulted in any calamities. What he forgets is that virtually all shark fisheries in the United States are found in Florida, Louisiana, and North Carolina. Banning shark finning in California is like banning buffalo hunting in Rhode Island; there just isn't any. My friend from the Marianas tells us that there are 73 million shark fins in the global market annually. That is a very misleading statement. It comes from a report published by Shelley Clarke. That report gives a range of between 26 and 73 million and makes no differentiation between legally and illegally obtained fins, which, unfortunately, is a defect in this bill itself. Mr. Speaker, for a different opinion, however, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Texas compared banning shark fins to banning ivory. Of course, the difference is that the U.S. was a major consumer of ivory. It is 1 percent of the entire global shark fin market. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a bumper sticker bill that purports to save the sharks, but in reality would damage shark fisheries, destroy American jobs, and increase the threats to endangered species. Let's first define what we agree on. Killing a shark solely to take its fins is contemptible. It is immoral. Herman Melville called such wanton waste blasphemous. But let us be clear: This practice is already illegal under Federal law. It has been that way since 1993. American fishermen are not the villains in this story, they are the heroes who are adhering to rigorous regulations that require them to account for the full use of their catches. So what does this bill do? It does exactly what it purports to abhor. Proponents rightly denounce taking the fins and then throwing away the carcass, so they have come up with a bill that would take the carcass but throw away the fins. This bill makes it illegal to possess or purchase a shark fin. The fins are 50 percent of the value of the catch. If you force shark fishermen to waste literally 50 percent of the value of their catch, you remove their margin and destroy their enterprise. And this does little to stop the illegal trade of shark fins, since almost all of the demand is in east and Southeast Asia, and that market will simply apply upward pressure on the illegal taking of shark fins. The responsible management of our U.S. fisheries and the exemplary conduct of U.S. fishermen has resulted in a great success story. Since 2000, the domestic shark population has been growing. The index of shark abundance in 2015 was the highest in its 29-year history. Now, if you force fishermen to throw away 50 percent of the value of each shark they catch, one of two things are going to happen. To stay in business, they will have to take more and more sharks to make up for their loss, or more likely for American fishermen, they will simply go out of business. If it is the latter, we can expect an out-of-control explosion in shark populations with devastating consequences for endangered marine species, like the right whale. And in either case, American fishermen will suffer to the advantage of the unregulated illegal foreign fishing fleets. This is an example of two developments that we have had to watch on the Natural Resources Committee since the Democrats took control. The first is their tendency to cater to emotional pressure groups who have been successful at raising large sums of money by tugging at the heartstrings of gullible donors, but whose bromides end up doing enormous harm to the very populations they purport to protect. Indeed, the Wildlife Conservation Society recently submitted a letter warning of this signed by 60 of our Nation's leading scientific experts in shark science and fisheries. The second is the tendency to blame Americans first for the excesses and predations of bad foreign actors. Time and again, American fishermen, American growers, and American consumers have proven to be the law-abiding, conservation-minded, responsible practitioners of a sustainable practice. But the Democrats continue to impose punitive and destructive measures on them to atone for the irresponsible actions of foreign nations. Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 925 reauthorizes conservation projects under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, NAWCA, through fiscal year 2024. I readily concede this is a popular program. Even without an authorization, the appropriators put $42 million into this last year. The sponsors of the bill, obviously, want more, authorizing $60 million a year. That is higher than any appropriation to date. I am concerned that, in a time where we are running record and perilous deficits, we ought to consider the level which some of these programs should be funded. Much of the money under NAWCA is used to obtain conservation easements and wetlands outright to benefit migratory birds and fish. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the program has benefited almost 30 million acres of wetland habitat in North America since its inception 30 years ago. It is a very good thing. Here is the problem, though: The Federal Government is already landlord to 640 million acres of the country and is doing a poor job of maintaining what we already have. For example, the National Park Service is facing a nearly $12 billion deferred maintenance backlog. The question I would raise today is whether we really need to authorize increased funding to buy even more land. It would be one thing if Congress had taken strong action to address this backlog by moving H.R. 1225 by Congressman Rob Bishop, the former chairman and currently ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee. That was a favorably reported bill. It has overwhelming support with 329 bipartisan cosponsors. That bill would take excess funds from new energy development and target these deteriorating lands so that people as well as migratory birds and fish can enjoy them. I recognize that H.R. 925 simply authorizes an existing program, but it is imperative to take into account the realities that our current Federal lands are facing. Acquiring more land when we can't take care of the land we already control is not a wise use of our resources. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this is, undoubtedly, a popular program. It does well serve public recreation and use, the very purpose of our public lands, and I certainly don't oppose it. But I do want to close with this warning: We are continuing to acquire more and more land while we are failing to take care of the enormous estates that we already hold. Louie Gohmert, my colleague on the Natural Resources Committee, has compared our Federal lands policy to the old miser in town whose mansion is dilapidated, whose yard is overgrown with weeds, and whose paint is peeling because he spends all of his time and money plotting how he is going to acquire his neighbor's property. I would like to hope that the bipartisan support for this bill will be accompanied soon with bipartisan support for Mr. Bishop's bill, H.R. 1225, which would actually take the resources that we are generating from the public lands to assure that we are taking proper care of our public lands. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I would urge adoption of the measure with the caveats I have already discussed, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1487 authorizes a special resource study of portions of the Los Angeles coastal area in California to evaluate alternatives for land management, including designating the coastal area as a unit of the National Park System. While I do not oppose authorizing a special resource study of this area, I hope that Congress will exercise caution before adding significant amounts of coastline to the existing Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, which is already struggling to manage its current resources and is increasingly beginning to resemble Lincoln's story of a farmer who said, ``I ain't greedy for land. I just want what joins mine.'' In 2018, because of bad land management, the vast majority of this same area burned in the massive Woolsey fire. More than 21,000 of the 23,595 National Park Service acres, about 88 percent of the land, were burned. This included most of the Western Town at Paramount Ranch, the 1926 Peter Strauss Ranch home, most of the joint National Park Service/ UCLA La Kretz Research Center, two ranger residences, and an attached archives building. Further, the National Park Service is already stretched perilously thin and facing a nearly $12 billion deferred maintenance backlog that we discussed in an earlier bill. Although I recognize that this measure simply authorizes a study and doesn't transfer any land or jurisdiction, it is imperative that we take into account the realities that our parks are facing and the devastating consequences of a land management policy that can only be described as benign neglect. As we are discovering, the consequences are anything but benign. Mr. Speaker, with that caveat, I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.