Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, each year 850,000 EMS providers answer more than 30 million calls to serve 22 million patients in need at a moment's notice and without reservation. For these heroes who serve on the front lines of medicine, sacrifice is a part of their calling. EMTs and paramedics have a rate of injury that is about three times the national average for all occupations, and some pay the ultimate price in the service of helping others. The men and women of the emergency medical services profession face danger every day to save lives and help their neighbors in crisis. They respond to incidents ranging from a single person's medical emergency to natural and manmade disasters, including terrorist attacks. But while their first responder peers in law enforcement and firefighting have been honored with national memorials, EMS providers have not. H.R. 1037 aims to change that. The National Emergency Medical Services Memorial Foundation exists to honor, recognize, and remember the commitment, service, and sacrifice of our Nation's EMS heroes. H.R. 1037 would authorize this foundation to place a commemorative work on Federal land in the District of Columbia to commemorate the commitment and service represented by the EMS community. The foundation will be solely responsible for funding the project, and no Federal funds will be required. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1037) to authorize the National Emergency Medical Services Memorial Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 author of this measure, the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, East Rosebud Creek is located in Carbon County, Montana, just north of Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness in the Custer National Forest. The bill before us designates a 13-mile segment of East Rosebud Creek, beginning at its source, the East Rosebud Lake, as a wild and scenic river. A second 7-mile segment from the outlet of East Rosebud Lake to the point where the waterway enters private property would be designated as a recreational river. This legislation specifically applies only to the segments of the creek that lie within public lands. Important historical uses outside of the wild and scenic boundary are protected by this bill. Finally, H.R. 4645 explicitly prevents the creation of a buffer zone to restrict land use outside of the designated area. This legislation is the result of a compromise supported by a diverse coalition that includes local ranchers, sportsmen, conservationists, and business owners. Companion legislation has been introduced with the support of both Montana Senators. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4645) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of East Rosebud Creek in Carbon County, Montana, as components of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the more than 5,000 residents of the Crooked River Ranch and in the name of common sense, I ask for passage of this vital public safety measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the author of this legislation and the elected representative of this threatened community.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Crooked River Ranch is a residential community that is home to approximately 5,500 people. It is located between the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers in Jefferson County, Oregon. Because of this geography, there is only one all-weather road in and out of Crooked River Ranch. Now, right next to this community, along the Deschutes River, is a roughly 3,200-acre Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls Wilderness Study Area, which is managed--or, more accurately, is mismanaged--by the Bureau of Land Management. This BLM property is thick with vegetation, which poses a very real risk for catastrophic wildfires, in large part because the wilderness study area regulations greatly restrict essential measures for both fire mitigation and firefighting. For example, in a wilderness or wilderness study area, you can't use mechanized or motorized equipment or transport. This includes chainsaws as well as electrical generators, trucks, and larger equipment essential to fuels management. You can't even use this equipment to cut fire breaks. You can't build fire roads. You can't do mechanical thinning of vegetation. Even the hand thinning that is allowed in such areas is very limited. Absent a waiver from the Secretary of the Interior, firefighters can't drop fire retardant or use bulldozers to cut fire breaks in the wilderness study area during a fire. Tragically, the benign neglect mandated by these requirements has made all wilderness areas firetraps just waiting for a lighting flash or a careless match. H.R. 2075, authored by Congressman Greg Walden, with the support of the local community, would slightly modify the eastern boundary of the Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls Wilderness Study Area, making it possible to manage the land properly to reduce fuel loads that threaten the neighborhoods in Crooked River Ranch. The boundary change will reduce the WSA by about 830 acres, but this small change will promote public safety, allow for more efficient fuels treatments on the lands immediately adjacent to Crooked River Ranch, and give critically important flexibility to local firefighters should fire break out in that area. This is an issue of public safety, and this bill will clearly help protect the lives and property of the thousands of Crooked River Ranch residents from wildfire. I commend Congressman Walden for his work to provide a commonsense solution to a very real public safety concern. I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2075) to adjust the eastern boundary of the Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls Wilderness Study Area in the State of Oregon to facilitate fire prevention and response activities in order to protect adjacent private property, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

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

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), my colleague on the House Budget Committee.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does two things: It increases from 20 percent to 70 percent the percentage of able-bodied adults in SNAP that would be required to comply with the work requirements in the bill, and it requires the use of the E-Verify system to assure that work training is available only to legal residents in this country who are legally entitled to work. H.R. 2 provides for a requirement that work-capable, nonemployed adults look for work or train for work in order to receive SNAP benefits. That is important. When Maine implemented a work requirement for able-bodied welfare recipients, they found that 84 percent of this population left the welfare rolls and, within a year, had doubled their effective pay. Alabama saw the same results. Unfortunately, H.R. 2 would only engage about 20 percent of this population--20 percent. This amendment would boost the work participation rate to 70 percent of able-bodied adults in the program. It does so by implementing changes recommended by The Heritage Foundation. H.R. 2's work requirement affects parents of children under age 6. This amendment reduces the exemption to those with children under age 3 but with an important difference: H.R. 2's requirements extend the work requirements to both spouses of children under the age of 6. This, in effect, is a marriage penalty that treats married couples as if they were single. The amendment I offer applies to only one spouse in the family, allowing the parents to share domestic and work responsibilities between themselves in any manner they feel is appropriate. This recognizes, encourages, and rewards marriage as the stable and nurturing environment that it is. H.R. 2 allows States to waive the work requirement in geographic areas defined by them with higher-than-normal unemployment rates above 6 percent. This amendment deletes the waiver for an important reason: Where there is high unemployment, there is also more reason to encourage job training and job searching in order to equip recipients to compete in tighter job markets. Sidelining these individuals is self-defeating both for them and for the local economies. Also, the amendment removes the ability of States to define these geographic areas in a manner that would defeat the work requirement in the first place. H.R. 2 also allows States to exempt 15 percent of the able-bodied population from this work requirement. This amendment takes it to 5 percent. Finally, this amendment requires that SNAP recipients be screened by the E-Verify system to assure that training is going only to those who are obeying our laws and are legally in this country. This requirement is essential to the enforcement of our immigration laws. Otherwise, we are spending taxpayer money to train illegal immigrants whom Federal law prohibits from being employed. This amendment transforms the work requirement in H.R. 2 from an empty and symbolic gesture covering just one-fifth of the able-bodied population receiving food stamps to more than 70 percent. It rewards, rather than penalizes, married couples and recognizes that the shared responsibilities of marriage are one of the single greatest factors in reducing poverty. Children born into homes with single parents are five times more likely to live in poverty. It is time our policies reflected the importance of marriage in protecting our children. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would remind the ranking member that the reason the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill ended up costing us more is because we ended up adding a whole new series of subsidies to it. Experience is important to heed. New Zealand has four times more dependency on agriculture than the United States--they are four times more dependent--and it once maintained an extensive subsidy program just like ours. In 1984, New Zealand ended those subsidies. Well, what happened? Farm productivity rose, farm earnings rose, farm output all rose. What did New Zealand farmers who opposed the ending of subsidies say once those subsidies were removed and the economy responded? The Federated Farmers of New Zealand says that it ``thoroughly debunked the myth that the farming sector cannot prosper without government subsidies.'' Mr. Chairman, it is long past time to debunk that same myth in our own country, restore to consumers the power to command what producers grow, and restore to producers the accurate price signals they need to maximize their productivity in a free and undistorted market. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, farm subsidies, essentially taking money from taxpayers to inflate the price of their own groceries, was never a good idea. They are the poster children of corporate welfare since the vast proportion of them go to large corporations, not to small family farms. And 60 percent of American farms get no subsidies at all, contradicting the claim that somehow American agriculture couldn't exist without them. We spend about $20 billion a year subsidizing about 40 percent of our farms. That is $160 a year out of the direct taxes of an average family in America, and that doesn't include the cost to consumers from higher prices. As we just heard, the sugar program alone costs taxpayers $3.7 billion a year in higher sugar prices. That adds about $30 more to their grocery bills. Subsidies hurt taxpayers, they hurt consumers, and they even hurt farmers in the long run. The decline in farm economy since the last farm bill ought to warn us we are doing something wrong. Prices are signals sent by consumers over what they want to buy and the amount that they are willing to pay. If left alone, they tell producers what consumers want more of and what they want less of. If consumers want less soybeans and sugar and more wheat and cabbage, prices for soybeans and sugar decline and prices for wheat and cabbage increase. Producers respond by planting less soybeans and sugarcane and more wheat and cabbage, unless--unless--the government distorts those price signals through subsidies. Producers end up planting more of what consumers don't want and less of what they do. Thus, producers are artificially induced to perform below their potential productivity. Many of the subsidies today are in the form of crop insurance. Farmers get heavily subsidized insurance to guarantee them profits for their products. Who pays those subsidies? Taxpayers. What is insurance? It is the monetization of risk. It is the way markets assign a dollar value to the risk that one undertakes in any human enterprise. The higher the risk, the more expensive the insurance. By subsidizing crop insurance, we once again corrupt the price signals that farmers need to make rational decisions. If crop insurance for soybeans is expensive, the market is warning farmers not to rely on soybeans. If taxpayers subsidize the cost of that insurance to lower its price, we are encouraging very risky behavior by masking the cost of that risk. Once again, that produces bad outcomes for taxpayers, for consumers, and ultimately the farmers themselves because they have been led toward higher risk by distorted price signals. Nor is subsidized insurance necessary for farm loans. Bankers loan to other non-subsidized parts of the farm economy without subsidized insurance. There are no good arguments for continuing these subsidies. Most farmers don't get them right now. Those who do tend to be major corporations and not family farmers. Now, my amendment preserves subsidies for the next 2 years and then gradually phases them out over the next 10 years, assuring that producers who have grown dependent on these subsidies have plenty of time to adjust their operations. But at the end of this 12-year process, we have a much more efficiently functioning agricultural market that is accurately responding to the needs of consumers rather than to the whims of government bureaucrats. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

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