Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), the author of this measure.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2370) to authorize Escambia County, Florida, to convey certain property that was formerly part of Santa Rosa Island National Monument and that was conveyed to Escambia County subject to restrictions on use and reconveyance.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1927, the African American Civil Rights Network Act, introduced by our distinguished committee colleague, Congressman Lacy Clay from Missouri, directs the National Park Service to identify and create a national network of historic sites, research facilities, and educational programs connected to the modern African-American civil rights movement. The network will be comprised of existing units and programs of the National Park Service related to the African-American civil rights movement as well as the properties and programs of other Federal, State, local, and private entities that join the network. Establishing this network of historic sites connected to the African- American civil rights movement will help preserve the legacy and the struggle of the many courageous individuals who risked their lives to secure racial equality and to put the full measure of the Declaration of Independence and its sacred principles into action. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reciprocate the kind words of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay). It has been a pleasure working with him on this bill. Shakespeare put it best: This story shall a good man teach his son. This bill tells that story of how the full measure of our Nation's founding principles came to fruition. I would ask for Members' support and adoption of this measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, we have just heard a very familiar theme from the Democratic side of the aisle. It is a theme they have sounded for the past decade and goes a long way to explain why America's prosperity has been stagnating. It has literally been on hold during these past 8 years. God forbid there should be more jobs to support struggling families in this little community. God forbid our roads should ever be used to get products to people who desperately need them. Now, it is hard for me to understand how a one-lane gravel road is going to accommodate all of that commerce. What it is going to accommodate are people who desperately need access to the neighboring city of Cold Bay. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this bill, Mr. Young's H.R. 218, on behalf of the people of King Cove, Alaska. I want you to imagine being a resident of that tiny little community. Its only outside access is by a gravel airstrip and a little tiny harbor. It is just 20 miles from the city of Cold Bay. Cold Bay has got a regional airport, they have got medical facilities, but there is no road connecting that little town with the life-sustaining civilization just 20 miles away. We all know of the exceptionally harsh weather conditions in that area; they routinely prevent air and sea travel out of King Cove. If you are in trouble in that weather, there is help just down the road, but there is no road. Why is there no road? Well, we have just heard a sampling of why. It is not because of natural barriers. It is not for lack of need or financing. It is because a national wildlife refuge in a section of the Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge is in between these communities and the Federal Government and leftwing environmental activists just won't hear of it. For over 20 years, the people of King Cove have begged for this lifesaving road for their safety--not a major interstate, not a parkway, just a one-lane road. It requires only 206 acres out of the 59 million acres of designated Federal wilderness in Alaska. Just in the last 4 years, this has been pointed out, 55 emergency medical evacuations have been made, a number of which required Coast Guard involvement or extended patient waiting times or both. Mr. Westerman has told us just last year of the King Cove woman in her seventies suffering from heart issues medevaced from King Cove to Cold Bay by Coast Guard vessel after high winds prevented an air ambulance from landing at King Cove. In the end, it took the woman over 7 hours to reach a hospital in Anchorage. A road between King Cove and Cold Bay would go a long way to preventing similar situations from recurring, and it would provide a potentially lifesaving evacuation route for King Cove citizens in the event of an emergency. And if it helps provide additional jobs for that little community, well, I say so much the better. Congressman Young has tried for more than a decade to get this done, but it has been stymied by leftwing environmental activists and by ideological zealots in the bureaucracy. During our hearing on the bill, opposition came not from any of the communities involved, but from environmental activists hundreds of miles away from King Cove, although they seemed to have mouthpieces here in this House. In exchange for use of the 206 acres of Federal land for this road, the State of Alaska is willing to transfer 40,000 acres of State land to the Federal Government. This bill facilitates that transfer and, after two decades, finally gives permission for this little road to be built. It is long overdue. I salute Congressman Young for his persistent pursuit of justice for the long-suffering people of King Cove. Mr. Chair, I ask for speedy adoption of this bill by this House.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the efforts of Dr. Andy David, Israel's Consul General to the Pacific Northwest, who has worked tirelessly to deepen the ties between our two nations, as he completes his tour of duty at the Consulate General of Israel in San Francisco. Dr. Andy David began his appointment as Consul General in August 2012. He has focused his work on relationship building with essential organizations such as the American Jewish Committee and promoting the special relationship between Israel and the U.S. Throughout his career in public service, Dr. David has focused his work to advance U.S.-Israeli relations in the areas of economic development, business ties and trade opportunities. Dr. David helped launch a cultural exchange with Israeli artists and the City of San Francisco, developing a strong exchange program with San Francisco-based artists and their Israeli counterparts. Under Andy's guidance, the University of California system signed a new cooperation agreement with Israel designed to foster technological innovation, research, and development. This collaboration is aimed at helping American and Israeli companies increase competitiveness and improve the commercial success of both countries in global markets. In 2014, after a series of anti-Israel rallies cropped up throughout San Francisco, Dr. David and fellow pro-Israel supporters organized a rally to show solidarity for continued U.S. support of Israel and increase morale for Israeli soldiers fighting against terrorist groups in Gaza. Today, a strong U.S.-Israeli relationship is more important than ever. Without the selfless dedication of public servants like Dr. David, the peace and security of both nations would suffer. The United States knows no greater friend than Israel, and Dr. David has done an extraordinary job of fostering an understanding among Americans of the importance of Israel to the security of the United States. I hope the accomplishments made by Dr. David will inspire a future generation of public servants to deepen the ties between our countries. Mr. Speaker, the partnership between the United States and Israel will continue to reap Dr. Andy David's contributions for years to come, and I rise to express my profound gratitude for his tremendous service.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of our Nation's greatest conservative minds and most eloquent voices, Bruce Herschensohn of California, on the occasion of his upcoming birthday. I am told he is opposed to keeping an exact count of birthdays, either that or he has simply lost track, but it is a significant milestone and one for which his friends are grateful and his country is fortunate. He served our Nation and the free peoples of the world in the U.S. Information Agency during the Cold War. Anyone who saw and was inspired by the classic tribute, ``John F. Kennedy: Years of Lightning, Day of Drums,'' has Bruce Herschensohn to thank. He went on to serve President Nixon as both speechwriter and adviser. Anyone who lived in southern California in the late 1970s or the 1980s will remember Bruce's incisive nightly commentaries on KABC-TV and his decisive debates with John Tunney. I can tell you that they fundamentally shaped my thinking and animated my career, and I often encounter others throughout the country who trace their political roots back to his nightly conservative homilies. Through the darkest days of the Carter malaise, Herschensohn became a beacon of hope, helping to pave the way for the Reagan Revolution. He marshaled the self-evident truths of the American founding and introduced them to a new generation that was losing its memory of them. He connected the dots between freedom and its importance to the prosperity and happiness of our society and the stability of our world. He helped lay the foundation for the Reagan administration on the Presidential transition team. If he had had any knack or inclination for raising money, he would have served many years in the United States Senate, and both California and the Nation would have been infinitely better for it. He was one of the earliest voices to raise the alarm over Islamist terrorism and has been one of the strongest defenders of the State of Israel through all its travails and challenges of the past half- century. But I believe his greatest influence is through the thousands of students who have had the good fortune to study under his tutelage at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy for more than a decade. The full measure of his contributions to our Nation will be measured over the many years to come as his students take their place in shaping our Nation's policies over the next generation. On behalf of so many who have been influenced, inspired, and ultimately motivated by the elegance of his reasoning and the eloquence of his words, I am honored to offer happy birthday wishes to Bruce Herschensohn today.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the chairman of the bipartisan Western Caucus.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds a superfluous provision that requires a study on a subject that we have already studied to death. We find the left constantly proposing these technologies to manage our existing water shortage often as an excuse not to expand our ability to store new water supplies. The problem is not complicated. These recycling projects are typically four times as expensive as traditional water storage, according to a 2016 study by the California Public Utilities Commission. If we had exhausted our existing resources, then these technologies might make sense if the alternative is no water at all. But that is not the alternative. The alternative is to develop our resources at about one-fourth the cost of these technologies the gentleman is trying to sell us--four times the cost. No consumer in his right mind would pay four times more for the same product. Only politicians would do that, and the problem is when politicians make this choice, consumers end up paying. Which brings me to my second objection to the gentleman's amendment. Our traditional water projects are paid for by the users of the water in proportion to their use, as is the beneficiary pays principle that has guided our water projects for generations. These policies protect taxpayers from footing the bill for somebody else's water. The title 16 recycling projects the gentleman is promoting are not paid for by the water users but rather by general taxpayers, meaning these projects literally rob St. Petersburg to pay St. Paul. If the gentleman would like to confine the provisions of the bill to require his constituents to pay four times more for their water or that his constituents pay to subsidize the water for my constituents, I would be happy to support him. But I sincerely doubt that is what he has in mind. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment. I thank the gentleman from Fresno, California, for his constructive contribution to this process.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would simply cite to my friend the California Public Utilities Commission report in 2016, and what would be the cost of future sources of water for California. They say very clearly that recycling water is nearly four times as costly as traditional sources of water, and that is being generous. I support any water project that pencils out. This one does not. This one would require water bills to quadruple. For California, it is exactly policies like these that are driving water bills up. The people of California need to take note of that and to realize the choices they make at the ballot box have real world implications to the bills they are paying for simple things like water and power. Mr. Chair, I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I just want to say that this is a very good amendment. The committee supports it, and it is essential to providing the flexibility that is necessary. I might point out to my colleague from California, when we originally developed this bill more than 5 years ago, we consulted more than 60 water agencies throughout northern and central California, including many in Democratic congressional districts. Senior water rights are essential to northern California. This bill strengthens them, and Mr. LaMalfa's amendment adds the management flexibility that is long overdue.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I object.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think it is time to fact check the fact checker. The last major reservoir of over a million acre feet was in 1979. It was in New Melones, 2.3 million acre feet. The two reservoirs that the gentleman referenced combined are less than a million acre feet. They would fill New Melones to less than half of that amount. With respect to water salinity, the Bay-Delta Accord, that is codified by this bill, guarantees the water necessary to combat salt water intrusion. And finally, I would point out that, no, dams don't create water. Nature creates water. Dams store that water from wet years so that we have plenty of it in dry years. That is where we have fallen a generation behind in our needs precisely because of the laws that the gentleman from California doggedly defends. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Knight).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the ranking member.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, to vote against these measures, to vote to rob our military of $20 million ofsavings over the next 10 years for military bases the Pentagon itself says are unnecessary, it comes down to that. You cannot provide for the common defense if you cannot pay for it, and the ability of our country to do so is being called into grave question. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, our current defense spending is about where it was at the very peak of the Reagan defense buildup after adjusting for inflation. It is about the same as the next eight most powerful military forces on the planet, combined. Six of those eight are already our allies. The President has proposed adding $54 billion to this. That is the equivalent of adding more than the entire military establishment of Great Britain to what we already have. Yet we are told, and I do not doubt, that much of our military force is ill equipped and unready for combat. If that is the case, it is not a fiscal problem; it is a management problem. We seem to care how much money is being spent, but not how it is being spent. That is a catastrophic failure of congressional oversight. In recent years, the Pentagon has warned that its infrastructure is 22 percent bigger than necessary. It has asked Congress for another round of Base Realignment and Closure reviews. Just last month, Secretary Mattis urged resumption of BRAC. He believes it will save $2 billion a year and $20 billion over 10 years. That is enough money to buy 120 FA-18 Super Hornets, 300 more AH-64 helicopters, or four Virginia class submarines if only Congress would get out of the way and allow unneeded bases to close or consolidate. The Pentagon has the authority to close or consolidate bases on foreign soil, but in the NDAA Congress blocks its authority to close or consolidate unnecessary bases on our own soil. My amendment removes the NDAA prohibition on this needed process and allows BRAC to move forward as our President has requested. His Statement of Administration Policy on NDAA is crystal clear: ``While the bill contains many promising reforms, it fails to authorize a Base Realignment and Closure round, which would result in substantial recurring savings and allow DOD to align infrastructure with force reduction.'' I have heard three objections: First, we are told the upfront costs of consolidation can be high. But the results are now in, and the first four BRAC rounds are saving us $7 billion a year. Second, we are told local economies depend on these bases, but experience tells us that communities rapidly recover by freeing these assets for productive commercial use. Third, we are told to wait until we finished expanding our forces, but the excess capacity estimate already assumes force expansion, and a new round of BRAC will only wring out a small portion of the overcapacity. When we squander billions of defense dollars keeping obsolete military bases open in order to satisfy congressional constituencies, we directly rob our military forces of the resources that we are constantly reminded that they desperately need. There is an old saying that you can't fill a broken bucket by pouring more water in it. At some point, you have got to fix the bucket. That is our responsibility. We need to take it more seriously. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.