Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

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 an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

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. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I assure my friend, they are not sarcastic. He will be sorely missed in this House. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this measure and urge my colleague to change his mind and come back next session, 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. 255, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cook), authorizes a locally supported equal value land exchange between the Forest Service and San Bernardino County. The county has proposed to convey an inland parcel within the San Bernardino National Forest to the Forest Service in exchange for land further north to be conveyed by the county. The land conveyed by the county will allow needed forest management infrastructure to be located closer to the forest and promote road safety by reducing the need to drive forest products down narrow, winding roads. H.R. 255 also authorizes cooperation between the county and the Forest Service to relocate a portion of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, if needed, and requires that the trail relocation be completed before the exchange is consummated. This legislation is the result of a Congressman who has listened to the voices of his community, an administration sympathetic to the plight of our forest communities, and community members and their local representatives putting forward a reasonable and workable plan that is fair to all parties. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I share my colleague's high words of praise and warmth for our colleague, Mr. Cook, the author of this measure, and I am also somewhat annoyed with him for his decision to leave the Congress at the end of this session for the county board of supervisors. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cook).

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as my friend said, this bill renames the Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge in honor of Congressman Lester Wolff, former Long Island-North Shore Congressman. It is certainly appropriate to recognize and honor Congressman Wolff's distinguished eight-term career representing the people of New York by adding his name to the wildlife refuge that he fought so hard to create. This refuge has become a popular destination for many Americans to enjoy the wildlife and beauty of our outdoor spaces, and, at 100 years of age, Congressman Wolff has the distinction of being the oldest living former Member of Congress. Mr. Speaker, it is most fitting we honor a man so dedicated and who has put so much of his life into fighting to protect and conserve this place and fighting for his constituency. I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairwoman, when I chaired the Federal Lands Subcommittee a few years ago, the ranking Democratic member was from Massachusetts. She shared the Democrats' goal of having the Federal Government acquire as much land in the west as it possibly could. Try as I might, I could never impress upon her the difference between a State like Massachusetts, where the Federal Government owns only 1.2 percent of the land, and a State like mine, California, where it controls 46 percent. I have got one county in my district where the Federal Government owns 93 percent of the land. And I tried in vain to get her to understand the dire economic implications for her district if the Federal Government one day seized 46 percent of her State, took it off the tax rolls, restricted public access, and forbade any productive use on it. What would that do to her State's economy? Yet, that is precisely what the Federal Government has done to the west. Now, the Federal Government owns 39 percent of the State of Arizona. Our holdings include the largest deposit of high-grade uranium ore in the United States, one of the largest in the world. Its development is critically important to our future defense and energy needs at a time when 93 percent of the uranium we use comes from foreign governments. Now, the Federal Government not only owns these critical deposits, it is responsible to the American people for their wise management and productive use. Now, a rational person might say, well, thank God we can be independent of foreign governments and develop these reserves for the benefit of taxpayers and the economy. A rational person might say that. But, of course, this bill is anything but rational. It would close these Federal lands, a million acres of them, far from the Grand Canyon, I might add, just to be clear, and forbid the American people from benefiting from these rich uranium deposits on the land that the American people own. This bill imposes a completely irrational total prohibition on the development of these resources and devastates the economic potential for the communities nearby. Indeed, this bill is most strongly opposed by the local representative from these communities, Congressman Gosar. The elected county supervisor from Mohave County came to Washington to plead with the Democrats not to hobble the economy of their rural district in this way. Once again, the Democrats dismissed the pleas of local residents in order to scratch their own ideological itch to seize as much land as they can and put it off-limits to the American people. Madam Chair, I would remind the Democrats that this was the practice of the early Kings of England. They set aside one-third of the English countryside, declared them to be the King's Forests, off-limits to the common people. This practice so enraged the English people that no fewer than five clauses in the Magna Carta were written to redress their grievance. Not content to limit such devastating restrictions to the Federal lands, this measure would also hamstring mining on tens of thousands of acres of State trust fund lands, which help fund Arizona's public schools and hospitals. The Democrats have waged a war against agriculture and mining for many years now. This bill is just their latest ham-handed example. I think the American people need to wake up to what a devastating future these policies will produce. Think about this: Everything that we touch, everything that provides for our survival, our comfort, our quality of life, absolutely everything, is either mined or is grown. I don't know of any exceptions. I think it is time we carefully consider the nihilism of the modern left and where it would take our communities and where it would take our country before it is too late.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairwoman, when I chaired the Public Lands Subcommittee, we set three overarching principles for the management of our public lands: to restore public access to the public lands, to restore good management to the public lands, and to restore the Federal Government as a good neighbor to those communities directly impacted by the public lands. This bill appears to me to be the opposite of all of these principles. It closes off public use and access, it consigns our lands to a policy of neglect, and it thumbs our nose at the wishes of many of the people in the affected region. H.R. 823 is a lopsided bill that offers a comparatively small, 28,000 acres, for motorized access versus roughly 400,000 acres of new wilderness enclosures. So 7 percent of the land is provided for motorized access and 93 percent of the land is closed to that access. That means, Madam Chair, you can't drive in to enjoy a family camping trip, and you can't even bring bicycles. It withdraws all these lands from any kind of resource development, which means that taxpayers will not have the benefit of revenues that these lands could produce. Much of the acreage designated for wilderness restrictions does not even meet the legal requirements under the Wilderness Act, and yet they are imposed in disregard of that law. So, so much for the public's right to use the public lands. As the growing menace of wildfires attests, 45 years of neglect of sound forest management due to the so-called environmental laws of the 1970s has abandoned our forests to themselves, and like any untended garden, an abandoned forest will grow and grow and grow until it chokes itself to death, and it is then consumed by catastrophic wildfire. Modern forest management broke this cycle of morbid overgrowth followed by catastrophic wildfire. I can tell you, in a State with a significant wildfire risk, this bill would further reduce the acres that have been identified as suitable for active forest management by approximately 8,000 acres. So, so much for good management of the public lands. This bill flies in the face of significant local opposition, as expressed by many of the locally elected representatives of the communities affected by this legislation, as we have heard from Mr. Tipton. Rural county commissioners have warned that this bill will harm the economies of their local communities by removing multiple-use designations from these lands. In fact, when Republicans offered an amendment calling for consultation with the local communities that have been ignored by this legislation, that amendment was rejected on a party-line vote. So, so much for being a good neighbor to communities most affected by the Federal lands. Now, in the past, the Natural Resources Committee has prided itself on attempting to forge bipartisan consensus on its bills. Those days appear to be over. In fact, 65 percent of the lands affected by H.R. 823 aren't even in the author's district. They are in the district of Mr. Tipton, who has just expressed his significant concerns over this legislation, who was never consulted before the bill was introduced, and who was barred from engaging the bill's sponsor during the committee's consideration of the bill on April 2. In this kangaroo proceeding, the bill's author acted as a witness, an advocate, and the chairman of the proceeding all at the same time. Every Republican Member from Colorado opposes this bill, and the bill is reported to us on a straight party-line vote. It is obvious that the majority has no interest in balancing the concerns of local residents, taxpayers, recreational user groups, and conservation groups, but instead feels entitled to impose its will over the pleas of the people most directly impacted. Fortunately, our system of government assures that such legislation, while it might pass one House, as I am sure it will tomorrow, but it will have no chance of becoming law--and rightly so.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I fervently agree with the premise of this bill. American political campaigns should remain among Americans. In California, it is now common for admitted noncitizens, some of them here illegally, to inject themselves into campaigns and attempt to influence voters. Perhaps we can all agree: You are either a citizen or you are not. If you are not a citizen, you are a guest. If you are a guest, you are not entitled to participate in our elections or in the debate that influences them. That is especially important in a nation where sovereignty is vested not with the government, but with the people. In most countries, the government is the sovereign. Here in America, the people are sovereign. But in America, our sovereign doesn't govern. It hires help. That is what all of us are. We are hired help. And once we are hired, the sovereign people then discuss among themselves the job we are doing, and every 2 years this discussion informs their decision over whether to keep us or to hire somebody else. That is a unique exercise of American sovereignty, and it ought to be off limits to all others. But where I fervently disagree is with this bill's use of governmental power to interfere with freedom of speech and association that is absolutely essential to the preservation of our liberty. Except for incitement to commit crimes, every person must be free to speak their minds. If a foreign national inserts himself into an American political discussion, the remedy is to call him out, tell him to butt out, and denounce such conduct for the meddling that it is. The remedy is not to insert the government into the discussion over how the government is doing. Once government seizes the power to tell the people what they can say or who they can talk to, we will have cracked the touchstone of our Bill of Rights, and that crack will grow until it shatters the bedrock of our freedom.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to tell a remarkable story of the unacknowledged patriotism and heroism of a 23-year-old Army scout, who, on December 3, 1944, was immersed in the horror and peril of some of the worst of the fighting in the bloody nightmare of the Philippines campaign. At Mount Cabunganan, Technician 5th Class Leon G. Felt heroically engaged the enemy. His family keeps the steel helmet he wore that day. The back half of that helmet is riddled with shrapnel holes from the inside out. A grenade exploded beneath him, and the deadly shrapnel blew up his left side, blowing off his helmet from below with enough force to pierce it. Now, Leon never talked much about what happened that day. The war ended, and he came home after months in Army hospitals dealing with his grave injuries. The only thing his family really knew, years later, was a brief entry in his journal. It said, ``Lieutenant Hanna told me he put me in for a Silver Star for what I did in the attack,'' but nothing came of it. His wife told me that the Army's final orders to Leon and his comrades were: go home, get a job, look after your families. Well, that is exactly what Leon Felt did. He joined the Southern Pacific Railroad, ultimately retiring as a shop foreman. He became deeply involved in his church. He married Lois Wade, his wife of 32 years, until she died in 1976. He then married Nola Pulsipher, who survives him after 42 years of marriage. He raised eight children and today has 41 grandchildren, 110 great-grandchildren with three more on the way, and seven great- great-grandchildren. The war never left him. Nola says she would often rescue him from his frequent nightmares, and all he could say through his tears was, ``It's either kill or be killed.'' His children only knew that he was in the thick of the war, that he had come home wounded, and that those days in the Philippines still haunted him. In recent years, Leon's family began looking into his service record. Having read his journal, his daughter, Lydean, began searching for what he did that day that would have rated a recommendation for the Silver Star. They had ordered copies of his medals, but there was no mention of a Silver Star in them. He had received the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart, among other decorations. But Lydean remained curious about that entry in his diary, and what seemed to be a confusing note on one Army form that suggested there might be something more, though there was no official record of it. Now, Lydean, who has all of the timidity of a heat-seeking missile, wouldn't give up. She wrote the National Personnel and Record Center of the National Archives. The Archives could find no record of other medals, including the Silver Star. A fire in 1973, they feared, would have destroyed any record if he had. But Lydean persisted. The archives kept digging, and then they stumbled upon a curious thing: a collection of citations of the most heroic deeds of World War II. In it, they found the citation for Leon G. Felt and what he did that December day in 1944. They were right about one thing: he was never awarded the Silver Star. On February 12, 1945, as he lay recovering from his wounds in an Army hospital, Leon Felt had been awarded the Nation's second highest honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, revered more than any other medal, but the Medal of Honor itself. But somewhere along the way, probably because of a clerical error, his service record was never updated, and word never reached him. Now, here are the words that were supposed to have been spoken as he received our Nation's second highest military honor: ``Technician Fifth Grade Leon G. Felt, Serial Number 39902244, Cavalry, United States Army. For extraordinary heroism against the enemy at Mount Cabunganan, Leyte, Philippine Islands, on 3 December 1944. ``Advancing through very rugged terrain, his troop encountered the enemy entrenched in a strong position astride a narrow ridge. The enemy were well dug in, their rifle pits being concealed with top coverings of brush and grass. During an attack by our troops, the advance of the right platoon was temporarily diverted by heavy enemy fire, but upon receiving reinforcing fire from the left platoon, the intensity of the enemy fire slackened. Seizing this opportunity, Technician Felt, a scout for his platoon, voluntarily rushed the nearest enemy rifle pit, and grasping the top cover, stripped it off, exposing three occupants whom he killed. Continuing his advance, he reached and uncovered a second pit and killed three more enemy. He then advanced toward a third pit but was struck and wounded by the fragments from an exploding hand grenade. ``Despite his wound and the warning shouts of his comrades, he continued to push his attack, and reaching the foxhole, killed its two occupants. Unable to advance farther because of his wounds, he from his advanced position directed the attack of his platoon upon remaining enemy within the position. This attack was successful, and the enemy were driven from the position with heavy losses. ``Technician Felt's prompt, heroic actions in voluntarily attacking the enemy single-handedly were an inspiration to his comrades and reflect the highest traditions of the United States Army. By command of General MacArthur.'' Long ago, soldiers coined the term ``snafu'' to describe the military bureaucracy. It is an acronym that, roughly translated, means, ``Situation Normal--All Fouled Up.'' Well, in a terrible snafu, the medal was never given to Technician Felt. He was never told of how grateful his country was for the sacrifices he made, for the bravery that saved the soldiers in his unit, and for the exemplary heroism and leadership that turned the tide of battle. His family arranged to surprise him with this long-overdue presentation about 3 weeks ago on October 5. This was the Saturday before his 98th birthday. They gathered from across the country. They decorated the house and made a cake. I have never been more honored or more moved than to have been asked to fulfill that long-overdue presentation that General MacArthur had ordered so long ago. On my way to meet this gentle giant, as his family called him, I received word that Leon Felt had passed away in the early hours of that morning, surrounded by his loving family. But they were still gathered at the house, in grief now as well as pride, and so I made the presentation posthumously to his widow, an extraordinary woman in her own right. There is some consolation in this story. As his health began slipping in the days before he died, his family told him that he had been awarded the Nation's second-highest military honor and that he was about to receive it at his birthday celebration. Mrs. Felt told me that his face brightened up, and he said, ``So, I really am your hero.'' And his wife replied, ``That is what I have been telling you all these years.'' The tragedy is that this honor should have followed Leon Felt throughout his life, as Shakespeare said, to ``remember, with advantage, what feats he did that day.'' He should have been feasted and feted, and thanked every day of his life, as this honor spoke of his courageous deeds. Instead of feeling guilt, he should have felt pride. For every nightmare he suffered alone, he should have enjoyed the gratitude of his fellow citizens. Instead, Technician Leon Felt, a recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross that he never received, did what he was told, quietly went home, got a job, and looked after his family. His memorial service will be held in Dixon, California, tomorrow, and he will be buried with full military honors at the Sacramento Valley National Cemetery. He will take to his grave pieces of shrapnel from the injuries he sustained at Mount Cabunganan. He will also take the Distinguished Service Cross that he was supposed to have been awarded 74 years ago. I want to say to his family on behalf of our country that this long- missing medal now attests that the American people finally know what the Felt family has known all along, that he really was and is our Nation's hero, too. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to tell this story tonight, not for Leon Felt's sake, but for our country's sake, to remind us what we owe heroes like him for the sacrifices often unrecognized and unrequited that they have made, to answer James Michener's haunting question: ``Where do we get such men?''--and also to place in the Record in these hallowed Halls an apology, really, for a 74-year-old clerical mistake, a snafu that prevented him from knowing in life the gratitude and respect that our Nation can now express only after his death. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House observe a moment of silence to honor the memory of Technician Fifth Grade Leon Gustave Felt, United States Army, recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, for 43 years the President of the United States has had the statutory authority granted by this Congress to declare a national emergency and to reprogram unobligated military construction funds to meet that emergency. Fifty-eight times previous Presidents have invoked this authority to address such matters as civil unrest in Sierra Leone and Burma. Only when this President invokes his authority for the 59th time to address the most serious national security crisis in our lifetime--the collapse of our southern border--only then do we hear protests from the left and its disciples in Congress. Under our Constitution, the Congress appropriates money but cannot spend it, and the President spends money but cannot appropriate it. He spends it according to laws given to him by this Congress. In this case, Congress appropriated funds and delegated to the President precisely the authority to spend those funds that he is now exercising. Whether Congress should have delegated this authority is a separate question that no one has raised in 43 years. But while that authority exists, the President has both a right and a duty to use it to defend our country. We also hear protests that the President's act will divert money from other construction projects. I ask them: What is more important to our Nation's defense than the defense of our own borders? A childcare center in Maryland? Really? Our Nation is going to have to have a serious discussion over whether we wish to continue as a sovereign nation with the uniquely American principles and customs that have made us, in Lincoln's words, the last best hope of mankind on this Earth, or whether we will allow the Democrats to render our borders meaningless and reduce our once great nation into nothing more than a vast international territory between Canada and Mexico.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, this bill purports to assert a very important constitutional right: the right to trial by jury in civil actions. But it does this by denying another very important constitutional right: the freedom of unimpaired contract, the right of two parties to agree to exchange goods and services according to their own best judgment. Now, because of the excesses and expenses and uncertainties that have plagued our civil courts, many consumers and producers and many employees and employers find it mutually advantageous to waive their right to civil jury trials in any disputes between them in favor of simpler, cheaper, and faster arbitration. Now, the proponents tell us that it is an uneven playing field and this requirement is often imposed in nonnegotiable, take-it-or-leave-it propositions. First of all, this isn't exactly true. Every employee and every consumer, no matter how weak and vulnerable, has an absolute defense against a bad agreement: It is the word, ``no.'' No, the pay isn't good enough; no, the price is too high; no, I don't like the terms, and I am taking my business elsewhere. Even when there aren't good alternatives, the fact is that every provision in a contract is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition if one side or the other insists on it. The question for each side is whether the totality of the contract is beneficial to them or not. It is my right to make that decision for myself without somebody in government making it for me. Now, remember, an arbitration provision binds both sides. For example, I am not a lawyer. I can't afford to hire one to take a big company to court. For me, binding arbitration helps level the playing field by providing an inexpensive alternative that the company must abide by. This bill takes that protection away from me. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, through arbitration, employees prevail three times more often, recover twice as much money, and resolve their claims more quickly than if they went through the civil courts in litigation; and, in most cases, the employer pays the entire cost of arbitration. According to one study, in claims between $10,000 and $75,000, the consumer claimant was charged an average of $219. Now, you compare that to the cost of hiring an attorney and taking on an entire corporate legal department. The net result of this bill will be higher prices for products and lower wages for workers as companies factor the higher cost of litigation into their business models, and, meanwhile, it denies consumers and employees the freedom to choose a much simpler and less expensive way to resolve their disputes.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I readily concede that this amendment is anathema to the ruling elite in Sacramento. They have had their way with California. The policies they advocate on the House floor today are the same policies they have inflicted on my once Golden State during my lifetime. Those policies have produced the highest effective poverty rate in the Nation, among the highest energy prices in the country, and a historic exodus of Californians fleeing to other States. The road to Venezuela leads through California, and I urge the rest of the Nation to ask themselves: Is that really a road they want to take? We went down that road in the 1970s. The bill's author is, perhaps, too young to remember those dark days when our Nation was held hostage to foreign oil, when cars lined up for blocks to get gas and every meeting of the OPEC nations was a national crisis. I check the daily AAA survey of gasoline prices. Today, in California, the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline is $3.63. In South Carolina, it is $2.23. That is a $1.40-a-gallon difference, and I ask the bill's author from South Carolina to consider if his constituents are ready to enact California policies and then pay for them through the nozzle. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment removes the Pacific Coast for the total moratorium on oil exploration imposed under this legislation. It will make my California Democratic colleagues' heads explode, but there are also many other reasons to support this amendment. California is already pursuing these Green New Deal policies pioneered by Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Californians are now paying among the highest electricity and gasoline prices in the country as a result. In the last decade, while U.S. oil production has grown 130 percent, it has declined in California by 20 percent. In 2000, California produced 50 percent of the petroleum it consumed every year--50 percent. That figure is now down to 30 percent. In 2000, California imported 25 percent of its oil from foreign countries. Today, it imports 60 percent. In just the last year, California's oil purchases from Saudi Arabia ballooned from 98 million barrels to 135 million barrels. These foolish policies are contributing to one of the highest unemployment rates, the largest homeless population, and the highest effective poverty rate in our Nation. Yet, leasing the 240 million acres that are currently off limits could support an additional 165,000 jobs and inject $15 billion into our economy every year. President Trump reversed the Obama-era war on energy, and last year America became the largest petroleum producer on the planet, outpacing both Saudi Arabia and Russia for the first time. These policies are also contributing to the lowest unemployment rates for Americans of African and Hispanic heritage in our Nation's history, rising wages after an entire lost decade of economic stagnation, and an overall rate of economic growth almost twice what we are seeing in Europe or that we saw under the Obama Administration. And let us consider the environment. California's coastal waters suffer from natural oil seepage of 86,000 barrels a year into the Pacific Ocean, the equivalent of one Santa Barbara oil spill every year. Development of our offshore resources reduces the pressure that produces seepage. Having grown up in coastal Ventura County 50 years ago, I can tell you firsthand of the conspicuous decline in natural seepage that has occurred in the years since the Channel Islands field opened. And lest we forget, it is the abundance of natural gas that has reduced our country's carbon dioxide emissions far below what expensive and oppressive government regulation has accomplished in Europe. California leads the Nation? Let me repeat: While our Nation's oil production is up 130 percent, California's is down 20 percent. While our Nation has achieved energy independence, California's reliance on foreign oil has more than doubled. That is trailing the Nation, not leading it. My State, that has among the most bountiful oil and natural gas resources in the Nation, has the least political will to develop them. I offer this amendment to highlight this point and to warn the rest of the Nation where it leads. And also--let's be honest--to watch my California Democratic colleagues set their hair on fire. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time so we can now watch. And I am ready to close when they are.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I respect the bill's author, and I understand that he is faithfully representing the opinions of the majority of his district in seeking to permanently place our offshore petroleum reserves off the coast of his State off-limits to exploration and development. All of our Nation's coastlines are beautiful, and they all support all sorts of tourism, commercial activities, and military activities important to their local communities and our Nation. For more than a century, offshore energy development has shown itself to be entirely compatible with these uses. To suggest that it is in some places but not in others is manifestly silly and wrong. For 22 years in the California Legislature, I represented California's Channel Islands, including the Santa Barbara Channel, which, by the way, is the home of the Pacific missile test range. Yes, in 1969, an outdated drilling technology produced the third- largest oil spill ever recorded, devastating tourism and fishing that year. I fully understand the fears of the supporters of this bill. But a little perspective is needed. The economic losses caused by the spill were fully compensated, and the environmental damage was quickly healed. I might add that the second-largest oil spill in history was the wreck of the oil tanker Exxon Valdez, which is the alternative to offshore production. For more than 50 years, offshore production in the Channel Islands has been an immense positive for the region and is entirely compatible with military operations there. It has supported thousands of jobs; it has pumped a fortune into the local economy; and it has generated enormous revenues for local, State, and Federal coffers. By the way, if you ask any sports fisherman in the region where the best fishing is, he will tell you that it is by the rigs. I am not here today to argue for what is right for local communities in other States and other regions. I understand that offshore production suffers from what Bastiat called the paradox of the seen and unseen. We see the danger of a blowout like Santa Barbara in 1969 or the Deepwater Horizon in 2010. But what we don't see are the enormous economic benefits generated day in and day out by American energy production or the critical role it plays in our Nation's prosperity. This is where the national interest must be put ahead of parochial ``not in my backyard'' protests. Procedures have been long established to ensure that offshore production can occur alongside commercial fishing, recreation, and, yes, military testing and training. They have proven themselves to be entirely compatible during many decades of practical experience. Indeed, one of the many ironies of this NIMBY movement is that commercial fishing and military operations are highly dependent on precisely the abundant and affordable petroleum produced by offshore drilling, so too, by the way, is the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Offshore production is the main funding source for this program, and another shortsighted irony is that the same markup that produced this bill to shut down offshore production off the Florida coast also permanently reauthorized the very fund that depends on offshore production for its very existence. If the Congress were to enact a permanent moratorium on production for one part of our coastline, it begs the question: Why are some people more equal than others? Madam Chair, we are all advocates for our local districts, and the bill's author is an able and respected advocate for his. But our collective responsibility as Congress is not to local interests but to the national interest, and it is in the national interest that our Nation is energy independent, prosperous, and strong. This bill undermines these vital national objectives.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise to observe World Ranger Day, which will be commemorated on July 31, 2019. World Ranger Day was first designated in 2007 as a day to honor Rangers across the globe who have died in the line of duty while protecting the world's historic and natural wonders. I am honored to represent just a few of these landmarks in my district, including Yosemite and Kings Canyon National Parks. The Rangers who patrol these parks work tirelessly to protect visitors, promote recreation, and preserve these majestic natural and cultural resources. They are the eyes, ears, and often the first responders across these lands; combatting animal poaching, vandalism, and even wildfires on the frontlines of conservation. Rangers counter these threats not just on our own public lands, but across the globe. From Harry Yount, the father of the ranger service and the first national park ranger, to the Buffalo Soldiers who fought wildfires and poachers in Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks, rangers have long recognized the need to safeguard our most vital lands. It is our duty to uphold the legacy and example of fallen rangers and do our part to be responsible stewards of our stunning natural wonders. As President Theodore Roosevelt observed, ``We have fallen heirs to the most glorious heritage a people ever received, and each one must do his part if we wish to show that the nation is worthy of its good fortune.'' Our Rangers have gone above and beyond to live up to this call, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, we have, unfortunately, entered a period of our history when our political rhetoric has become hyperbolic, just as our political views are becoming increasingly irreconcilable. We would all be well-advised not to continue down this road. ``America, love it or leave it,'' is not a new sentiment nor a radical sentiment, and it certainly is not a racist sentiment. It should remind us of commonly-held and enduring founding principles that ought to be uniting us as a free people: Respect for the rule of law, and for the uniquely American principles of individual liberty, constitutionally-limited government, and personal responsibility that have produced the happiest, most productive and most powerful Nation in the history of the world. Every nation has a right to protect its culture, traditions, institutions, and principles. This fundamental consensus is what binds us together and unites us as a free people, and it is what makes possible all of the compromises and accommodations required by democratic self-government. We have entered an era when that consensus is breaking down. We have seen a growing hostility to our American Founders, our American founding principles, and our proud American heritage. Legal immigration, immigrants who come to our country by obeying our laws, respecting our Nation's sovereignty, and bringing with them a sincere desire to embrace our Constitution and the principles of liberty that animate and inform our form of government, is integral to this process. Some of the most patriotic Americans I know are legal immigrants who obeyed our laws, who waited patiently in line, who did everything our country asked of them. Some of the most unpatriotic Americans I know were born here and have enjoyed all of the blessings of liberty, without ever appreciating or even understanding the principles that produced our Nation's greatness and its goodness. Socialism and slavery spring from the same principle--in Lincoln's words: ``It is the same spirit that says, `you work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it.''' He reminded us that ``A house divided against itself cannot stand.'' He said: ``I do not expect the house to fall--but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.'' He understood that freedom and slavery were antithetical; and though they might be held together in a temporary accommodation, they could not coexist for long. Today, we face the same conflict between freedom and socialism, and it is time to choose. Now, I wish the President were more temperate in the words he sometimes uses, and I agree that the tone of his recent remarks was unnecessarily provocative. But his central point is irrefutable. There is no requirement for those who hate our country to remain here when there are so many other countries with different principles and values to choose from and that have, in turn, produced very different results. This is as true of those born here as those who have come here from abroad. The President spoke not of race but of patriotism, American patriotism. And to call that racist fundamentally misunderstands and misrepresents the question before our country today.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, there is a reason for the abusive rhetoric from the left. For 2\1/2\ years, they peddled a monstrous lie that Donald Trump is colluding with a hostile foreign government. They concocted it with a phony dossier commissioned by the Clinton campaign and promoted by the highest officials in the FBI, our intelligence agencies, and the Justice Department, first in a failed attempt to interfere with the 2016 Presidential election and then to undermine the constitutionally elected President of the United States. Now, despite spending $25 million on an outrageously biased team of partisan zealots assembled by Mr. Mueller, which initially included the now-infamous Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and using some of the most abusive prosecutorial tactics ever employed in this country, they could find no evidence to support the lie. So what to do? They had to think up another lie and think it up quick. So now we hear cries of obstruction and coverup. Good luck with that. Coverup of a crime that never happened? Obstruction, by turning over every document Mueller requested and even waiving executive privilege to allow the White House counsel to testify? Now, Mr. Speaker, you compare that to Hillary Clinton's willful destruction of 30,000 emails under subpoena and you get a sense of the double standard involved here. This is a desperate scavenger hunt to salvage their false narrative, and their time and the Nation's patience is running out. The other shoe is about to drop. Broad investigations are now well underway and will soon reveal how this lie was perpetrated and promoted. Two governments interfered in our elections, the Russians through ham-handed propaganda, and the Obama administration by turning the most terrifying powers entrusted to our government against our political process. The reckoning is coming. As Longfellow said: The wheels of the gods grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, as we dither and posture and virtue signal here today, our southern border is collapsing. The border patrol warns that before this year is out, they will have apprehended over 1 million illegal aliens making a mockery of our sovereignty and our asylum laws. Unless Congress acts, these illegals will have to be released into our country; that is the population of the cities of Atlanta and Sacramento combined. Now, instead of taking simple measures necessary to secure our borders and reserve our asylum laws for the truly persecuted, the House meets today to grant blanket amnesty to roughly 2.5 million illegal aliens, encouraging millions more that they, too, can violate our borders with impunity. Now, the Democrats have long-advocated free services for illegals: free healthcare, legal counsel, education, food, housing--all paid by American taxpayers. Now, they deny they support illegal immigration; yet, they heap rewards on those who illegally immigrate. Many have gone so far as to advocate abolishing the agencies that defend our borders. Democrats long ago ceased to call illegal immigration for what it is--illegal. They have supported allowing illegal aliens to vote in our elections and opposed visa tracking of foreign nationals entering our country. They have even enacted sanctuary laws that require dangerous criminal illegal aliens to be released back into our communities rather than to be deported, as Federal law requires. Now, the real tragedy today is that there are hundreds of thousands of children who were brought here illegally and, in effect, stranded here without a country. They have no legal status here, yet little familiarity with their birth country. And there is broad bipartisan support to remedy this situation today, but we cannot do that until we first fully secure our border and fully enforce our immigration laws. Otherwise, we simply encourage more children be brought here illegally, producing yet another generation who will come to us in a few years with the same demands that we hear today. We could address both issues right now, right here and now. If full funding of the border wall and reform of our asylum laws were to be combined with legalizing the status of children who were brought here and raised here, through no fault of their own, this bill could become law in a matter of days. Within days, we could bring these young people out of legal limbo and restore the integrity of our borders--within days. But by forcing the completely one-sided partisan approach, the Democrats end up with precisely nothing. This is not legislating. This is farce. And history is screaming this warning at us that nations that either cannot or will not secure their borders simply aren't around very long. Madam Speaker, let that not be the epitaph of the American republic.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Arizona an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).