Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, like any compromise, I don't like everything in this bill, but the net effect is an important step forward in protecting California and its environment against devastating droughts, and it protects Lake Tahoe against catastrophic wildfires. My colleague from California says the California provisions are a sudden surprise to him in this water development bill. Well, he needs to pay more attention to the business on the floor. These provisions have all been in water development bills passed by bipartisan majorities from this House over the past 6 years. If he were truly concerned about the salmon, he should be supporting this bill. This bill encourages the fish hatcheries to produce burgeoning and abundant populations of salmon. It finally controls the nonnative predators in the delta that are, by far, the biggest single threat to salmon and smelt and other endangered species. The reservoirs are our most important defense against drought, ensuring year-round water flows. Without reservoirs, in a drought, the water heats to lethal temperatures and often dries up. There are no fish. In addition, this bill provides $335 million to increase our desperately needed reservoirs. It adds flexibility to management of the New Melones Reservoir. It streamlines water transfers to assure water can be more efficiently moved to where it is most needed. It adds strong protection to the northern California area of origin water rights, expedites approval of projects, and updates flood control criteria to make better use of our existing reservoirs.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. One more point on our fragile environment. This bill addresses the single greatest catastrophic threat to Lake Tahoe-- catastrophic wildfire--by expediting the reduction of dangerous fuel loads. Mr. Speaker, I urge its adoption.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the conference report on the Water Resources Development Act is the product of many hours of good faith negotiations between the House and the Senate and between Republicans and Democrats. Like any compromise, I don't like everything that is in it, but the net effect is an important step forward in protecting against the devastation of future droughts in California and catastrophic wildfire that threatens Lake Tahoe. It provides $335 million for desperately needed surface water storage. It opens a new era of hatcheries to provide for burgeoning populations of endangered fish species. It adds flexibility to the management of New Melones Reservoir and enables water transfers to assure that water can be more efficiently moved to where it is the most needed. It adds strong protection to northern California area of origin water rights. It expedites the review and approval of new projects. It updates flood control management criteria to make better use of our existing reservoirs. I particularly want to highlight the provisions related to Lake Tahoe. For many years, we have spent enormous resources to adjust drainage in the basin to improve water clarity at the lake. The Senate version of the measure, which was introduced this session by Senators Heller and Feinstein, continued this effort; but the Heller-Feinstein bill neglected the most immediate environmental threat to Lake Tahoe, and that is catastrophic wildfire. The Senate bill had no provision for forest management, specifically for fire prevention. The number of acres burned by wildfire in the Lake Tahoe Basin has increased each decade since 1973, including a tenfold increase over the past decade. Eighty percent of the Tahoe Basin forests are now densely and dangerously overgrown. They are dying. At lower elevations, there are now four times as many trees as the land can support. Modeling by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit warns that, in two-thirds of the forest, conditions now exist for flame size and intensity that are literally explosive. If a super fire of the size we have seen in other parts of the Sierra were to strike the Tahoe Basin, it could decimate this lake and its surroundings for a generation to come. For this reason, Congressman Amodei and I introduced a bill focused on fire prevention. This measure was specifically designed, after extensive input from fire districts throughout the Tahoe region, to reduce excess fuel before it burns. It provides for expediting collaborative fuel reduction projects consistent with the Lake Tahoe Land and Resource Management Plan, and it calls for funds generated by timber sales and other fee-based revenues to stay in the Tahoe Basin to provide for further fuels management and other improvements. This was falsely portrayed by leftwing activists in the region as a substitute for the Senate bill. As Congressman Amodei and I made clear repeatedly, it was designed to supplement that bill and fill a glaring deficiency that ignored the single greatest environmental hazard to the lake. I am very pleased to note that the critical provisions of both bills--for lake clarity and fire prevention--are now in the conference report, thanks to bipartisan negotiations between House and Senate negotiators, most notably by Senator Feinstein and House Majority Leader McCarthy. Unfortunately, in the last 48 hours, Senator Boxer has threatened to blindside this effort and destroy the fruit of these years of labor and endless hours of negotiation. She has threatened to assemble enough votes, not to put forward a positive and credible plan of her own to address these critical needs but, rather, to ruin the painstaking negotiations of many others just as they are coming to fruition. In the last 4 years, the King Fire, the Butte Fire, the Rough Fire, and the Rim Fire have destroyed more than 1,000 square miles of forest in the Sierra Nevada. If we don't restore sound forest management for fire prevention in the Tahoe Basin now, the next fire could reduce its magnificent forests to cinders and clog the lake with ash and debris for decades to come. We can only pray that wiser heads prevail in the Senate and that this conference report is speedily adopted by both Houses and signed into law by the President.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this year marked the centennial anniversary of the National Park Service and of that uniquely American notion that the most beautiful and historic lands should be set aside for the ``use, resort, and recreation'' of the American people, as the original Yosemite Grant Act put it, or, in the words of the Organic Act of 1916 that established the national parks, ``to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same.'' Yet, a century into this endeavor, the Park Service faces considerable challenges to achieving its objectives. The Park Service's original charge was to manage just 35 national parks and monuments. Today it is responsible for more than 400 units across 84 million acres. This exponential growth has left many locations in disrepair, facing a growing backlog of deferred maintenance now exceeding $12 billion. In addition to desperately needed maintenance, the Park Service also faces challenges with fee collection, technological upgrades, management of concessions contracts for visitor services, and, most disturbingly, a substantial decrease in overnight visitation. The decline has been particularly high among young people. Recent reports indicate that visits to parks by those 15 years of age and younger has fallen by half over the last decade. The National Park Service Centennial Act provides the Park Service with new tools and authorities that it can use to maintain and improve the system. Provisions in this bill help reduce the Service's maintenance backlog by generating new revenue to pay for needed capital improvements and leveraging private philanthropic donations to amplify this effort. In turn, these funds will be used to enhance visitor services, provide WiFi and cellular access that young people demand, and expand the Volunteers-In-Parks and Public Lands Corps programs that are so important in welcoming the public to the public lands. I believe the three greatest challenges to Federal lands management are to restore public access to the public lands, to restore sound management to the public lands, and to restore the Federal Government as a good neighbor to those communities directly affected by the public lands. This bill does all three. It promotes public access and enjoyment of the parks by promoting the expansion, modernization, and improvement of visitor services and amenities. It promotes good management by placing priority and generating funds necessary to address the growing maintenance backlog. It repairs the relationship between the Federal and local governments by giving local officials a say in future historic designations. I can't think of a better way to celebrate the last century and to begin the next century of our National Park Service than to restore the vision of its founders. Mr. Speaker, this bill does so, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, President-elect Trump has many difficult tasks ahead--one of which is to promote long overdue infrastructure construction at a time when the national debt exceeds our entire economy and interest costs alone are eating us alive. Now, some have said that a rebounding economy resulting from tax reform can pay for it. Well, that may be, but it is not guaranteed, it cannot be accurately forecasted, and we will need any new revenues to beef up our defenses and reduce our deficit--two other critical objectives of the new administration. Others have proposed tax credits to leverage private capital for infrastructure improvements. But tax credits reduce revenue and widen the deficit. Worse, such public-private partnerships have proven a fertile breeding ground for corruption, crony capitalism, waste, and fraud; and as we learned during the Obama stimulus fiasco, massive government spending might stimulate government, but it does little to stimulate the economy when it is squandered for boondoggles like subsidizing Solyndra and paying cash for clunkers. So how do we avoid mistakes of the past, control the deficit, protect taxpayers, and yet add $1 trillion of new infrastructure in a way that helps the economy and not just lines the pockets of politically well- connected interests? First, get government out of the way. Stop obstructing major infrastructure projects like the Keystone Pipeline. Keystone and many other projects like it across the country already have private capital ready to finance them. Keystone by itself would unleash an estimated $8 billion of privately financed infrastructure construction, and when complete, would mean a half million barrels a day of Canadian crude oil entering U.S. markets. In my district alone, one abusive official at the Sacramento office of the Army Corps of Engineers single-handedly blocked tens of millions of dollars of critical infrastructure construction desperately sought by local governments in the region. Multiply that across the country, and you can see how many infrastructure projects already are financed but cannot move forward because of Federal obstructionism. Second, streamline radical regulations that have made many infrastructure projects cost-prohibitive. In my district, the little town of Foresthill gets its water from the Sugar Pine Reservoir, formed by a dam that has an 18-foot spillway, but no spillway gate. The town is trying to increase the reservoir's capacity by adding the missing gate. The gate will cost $2 million, but environmental studies, environmental litigation, and U.S. Forest Service fees have inflated that cost to $11 million. So this project has stalled. Multibillion dollar expansion of Shasta Dam is stalled for similar reasons. Once again, multiply this across the rest of the country. Third, use revenue bonds to finance capital-intensive projects like dams and bridges. California built its iconic Golden Gate and Bay Bridges with loans from private investors--repaid by tolls that were charged only to the users of the bridges. The taxpayers were never on the hook for a dime, and the loans were paid back ahead of schedule. The famous California State Water Project constructed 21 dams and more than 700 miles of canals. The revenue bonds and self-liquidating general obligation bonds that financed it were paid back not by general taxpayers, but by the users of the water and power. Fourth, restore the integrity of our highway trust fund. We built the modern interstate system with the Federal excise tax paid by highway users at the gas pump. The more you drove, the more you paid for the roads you were using. But over the decades, more and more of these funds were bled away to subsidize mass transit and other purposes unrelated to highway construction. Restoring highway taxes for highways would go a long way toward addressing the maintenance and construction backlog. Fifth, repeal the outdated Davis-Bacon Act that requires Federal projects to pay grossly inflated wages. Think tanks like The Heritage Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute estimate that Davis-Bacon alone inflates total construction costs by roughly 10 percent. That means that just repealing this single act would add one new project for every 10 existing ones at no additional cost. These are just a few of the ways that massive infrastructure projects can be financed at zero cost to general taxpayers; and because these reforms are actually directed at projects for which there is a demonstrated economic need, political favoritism and corruption inherent in government-directed programs can be greatly reduced. Mr. Speaker, freedom works; and it is time that we put it and America back to work.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the American people have given our 45th President and the 115th Congress a clear mandate to revive our economy, secure our borders, restore our Nation's sovereignty, reinstate our Bill of Rights, and uphold the rule of law. Moreover, they have given us majorities in both Houses of Congress to do so. There is no excuse for failure. President Obama and Secretary Clinton set a positive tone for this peaceful transition of power, a tone no doubt shared by many Members of Congress and many Americans of good will who did not vote on the prevailing side. This represents the best of American statesmanship. Yet, we have also heard reactionary elements of the Democratic Party make a vicious pledge to thwart this mandate and destroy this President. One need look no further than Senator Reid's disgraceful diatribe on Friday to realize that these threats far exceed the lunatic fringe now violently rioting in our streets. They reach directly into the Halls of Congress. To fulfill the mandate of the American people, we will need to deliberate wisely and in good faith, with all sides participating in the discussion and all voices heard. But, ultimately, those deliberations must result in laws to fulfill that mandate. The agenda is daunting, and time is fleeting. The greatest single obstacle to this era of reform is the 60-vote threshold to invoke cloture in the Senate, and I rise today to urge the Senate to finally reform it. Given the record of abuse of this rule and avowed intentions of many in that body, nothing will change legislatively unless the Senate Republican majority takes action when they organize in January. All the reforms that the American people called for, that the President will request, and that the House will pass will be stopped dead in the Senate. Now, I don't argue to abandon this rule, but rather to restore it to its original purpose. Cloture is rooted in a sound and ancient parliamentary principle that, as long as one-third of a deliberative body wants to debate an issue, that debate should continue. After all, a minority exists to convince the majority of its way of thinking. This is the essence of deliberation. But this principle assumes it is an actual debate where Members are talking to one another, and it requires that the debate be germane to the question at hand and that it is not dilatory. That is how cloture started. But over the 20th century, it degenerated into a 60-vote administrative threshold just to consider legislation. Ironically, a procedure designed to protect debate has now morphed into a procedure that very effectively prevents debate. The two Houses of Congress are designed to disagree with each other, but once the House and the Senate independently exercise their best judgment on a particular matter, there is a conference process developed over centuries to resolve their differences. This process cannot function if one House simply refuses to consider the other House's work. The modern notion of cloture prevents that process and the system breaks down. During the last several Congresses, the House has sent hundreds of bills--including the appropriations bills that fund this government--to the Senate; but instead of amending their ideas into those bills or sending us bills of their own, they have simply refused to consider them by a minority denying cloture. Now, some Senators have said that this mechanism is necessary to preserve collegiality and encourage compromise, but how can you have collegiality when one side simply refuses to talk to the other? How can you have compromise when the matter to be compromised cannot be taken up and discussed? Others have said that since most legislation grows the powers of government, it is an effective brake on that tendency. It is true this rule effectively blocks bad legislation. It also very effectively blocks good legislation that is necessary to reverse this trend. The current cloture rule provides a ratcheting effect that locks in every expansion of government over the past century. Now, some Republicans have said that it has been most useful when they have been in the minority. I have to ask them, do you want to be a successful majority or a successful minority? You cannot be both as long as cloture exists in its current form. Voters elected Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress, and they expect action. They will get it from the President and from the House. But in order for the Senate to rise to this occasion, it must reform its cloture rule when it organizes in January.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the country of Georgia's 25th anniversary of regaining its independence from the Soviet Union. In these two short decades, Georgia has embraced freedom and made remarkable progress. Georgia has worked to become a leading example of democracy in a region where dictatorship is all too common and is reaping the fruits of free market reforms that bolster growth by reducing government regulation, fighting corruption, and simplifying the tax code. Through these efforts, Georgia strengthens its commercial, political, and security ties with the West--particularly with the United States through a strategic partnership built on shared democratic principles. Georgia has been a steadfast ally of the United States, strongly supporting U.S. security initiatives in the fight against terrorism and is the third largest contributor of troops to the Global War on Terror's Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan. These accomplishments shine all the more when taken in context of the challenges Georgia continues to face from Russia's voracious appetite for aggression in the region. Today marks the 23rd anniversary of the fall of Sokhumi, Georgia, to Russian troops and local separatist forces in 1993. The brutal massacre, torture, and expulsion of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Georgians from their homes that followed marked the beginning of Russia's efforts to occupy Georgia's territory. The U.S. State Department reported that: ``The [Abkhaz] separatist forces committed widespread atrocities against the Georgian civilian population, killing many women, children, and elderly, capturing some as hostages and torturing others . . . they also killed large numbers of Georgian civilians who remained behind in Abkhaz-seized territory . . .'' ``The separatists launched a reign of terror against the majority Georgian population, although other nationalities also suffered. Chechens and other north Caucasians from the Russian Federation reportedly joined local Abkhaz troops in the commission of atrocities . . . Those fleeing Abkhazia made highly credible claims of atrocities, including the killing of civilians without regard for age or sex. Corpses recovered from Abkhaz-held territory showed signs of extensive torture.'' It is in the interest of the American people to support Georgia's long-term stability by promoting its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Georgia's primary foreign policy goal is to attain membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, thereby integrating itself into the Euro-Atlantic community and containing Russia's expansionist efforts in the region. I urge my colleagues to join me in reaffirming our commitment to the U.S.-Georgia strategic partnership. We must stand with the Georgian people as they continue to pursue free and democratic reforms in the face of Russian hostility. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Georgian people on their 25 years of progress as an independent state, wish them well in the upcoming parliamentary election on October 8, 2016, and offer my support of our continued friendship.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on behalf of myself and Mr. LaMalfa, to honor the service of Supervisor Jim Chapman for his 43 years of outstanding leadership in Lassen County. In 1974, at the age of 19, Jim was first elected to the Susanville City Council. Two years later, Jim was elected to serve as Mayor. In 1976, he began serving the first of nine terms as Lassen County Supervisor representing District 2. Jim has proudly represented all aspects of the community. He has served on numerous boards and committees, including: Lassen College Board of Trustees, Lassen Hospital Board, Lassen High School Alumni Association (President, 2013 through 2014), Lassen County Chamber of Commerce (President, 2000), Susanville Kiwanis Club (President, 1985 through 1986), Rotary Club of Susanville (President, 2014 through 2015), Lassen County Special Olympics, Rural County Representative of California (President, 1982), and Lassen County Transportation Commission, among many others. Supervisor Chapman's distinguished career of service has not only benefited but truly inspired residents of Lassen County and beyond, as evidenced by numerous awards with which Jim has been honored, including: 25 Year Service Award from Special Olympics of Northern California; CALAFCO Lifetime Achievement Award; Elks Distinguished Citizen in 2010; and 2016 Lassen High School Alumnus of the Year. In addition to his exemplary public service, Jim has led a personal life filled with community involvement. He is a co-founder of the Lassen Sportsmen's Club Junior Fishing Derby, a Past Master of Lassen Masonic Lodge, a 33rd Degree Scottish Rite Mason, a Ben Ali Shriner; a 40-year host for ``Old Timers Day'' at the Lassen County Fair, and a Knight of the York Cross of Honour. Mr. Speaker, Supervisor Jim Chapman has an incomparable record of service to his community. We commend him for setting an example of outstanding leadership.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I particularly want to thank Congressman Gohmert for organizing this discussion on Federal lands policy and for his highlighting of the Federal Footprint Map. You can find that at naturalresources.house.gov/federalfootprint or just Google ``Federal Footprint.'' When you do, you will have a complete picture of how much land the Federal Government owns and how much of your State and your community is affected. It may surprise you. For example, the Federal Government owns just seven-tenths of 1 percent of the entire State of New York. It owns just 1.1 percent of the State of Illinois. It owns just 1.8 percent of the State of Texas; but then go further west, and you will see the reason for the Western revolt. The Federal Government owns and controls 62 percent of the State of Alaska. It owns and controls two-thirds of the State of Utah and 81 percent of the State of Nevada. In my home State of California, the Federal Government owns nearly half; 48 percent is Federal land. In one county in my district, Alpine County, the Federal Government owns 93 percent of the land. If you are not from one of the Western States, you need to understand what that means. That is all land that is completely off the local tax rolls. That is land that carries increasingly severe restrictions on public use and access, which means it is generating very little economic activity to these regions; and, often, Federal ownership means that Federal land use policies are in direct contravention to the wishes of the local communities that are entangled with it. Recently, the Natural Resources Committee held a field hearing in north Las Vegas at the request of Congressman Cresent Hardy. Now, if you have ever flown into Las Vegas, you know how vast are the empty and unutilized lands of Nevada, stretching as far as the horizon. Yet the local leaders there all complained of how the region's economy suffers from a great shortage of land--land for homes and shops, for businesses and infrastructure. What an irony and what a commentary about the harm that is being done by the decisions of our Federal land managers. More than a century ago, we began setting aside the most beautiful lands in the Nation for the ``use, resort, and recreation'' of the American people. That was the wording of the original Yosemite Land Grant that was signed by Abraham Lincoln in 1864; but somewhere along the way, public ``use, resort, and recreation'' became ``look, but don't touch,'' and the Federal Government became indiscriminate and voracious in the amount of land under its direct control. As I said, my congressional district is in the heart of the Sierra Nevada. Common complaints from my constituents and from local government officials range from abusive Federal regulatory enforcement to inflated fees that have forced families to abandon cabins they have held for generations, exorbitant new fees that are closing down long- established community events, road closures, and the arbitrary denial of grazing permits for family ranchers who go back generations on that land. A small town in my district that is trying to install a $2 million spillway gate for their reservoir was just given a $6 million estimate from the Forest Service just to relocate a hiking trail and a handful of campsites. Let me relate one quick story of what it means to be entangled in this Federal morass that came to me from the sheriff of Plumas County, which is just outside of my district. An elderly couple goes horseback riding near their home. They come across an old horseshoe. The wife picks it up, and an ambitious, young Forest Service official saw her pick it up. The next thing they knew, six armed Federal law enforcement officers descended upon their home. They tore it apart and, ultimately, prosecuted this elderly couple for removing the horseshoe, charging them criminally with stealing from the Federal Government. Ultimately, the Federal judge dismissed the charges and chastised the officials who were responsible for this travesty, but only after this couple had gone through hell. Ask yourself how your local economy would fare if the Federal Government owned 93 percent of the land in your county, forbade or greatly restricted any economic activity on it, and ignored the pleas of your local city council or county board. In my district, the Federal Government consigned our forests to a policy of benign neglect. We now have, roughly, four times more trees per acre than the land can support. In this overcrowded and stressed condition, the trees can no longer resist the drought and beetle infestation. Today, an estimated 85 percent of the pine trees in the Sierra National Forest--that is adjacent to Yosemite National Park--are dead. And I am talking about Christmas-tree-in-July dead just waiting to be consumed by catastrophic fire. The National Park Service estimates it is facing more than $12 billion of maintenance backlog, yet we keep adding to the Federal holdings that we can't take care of now. That is why the Federal footprint map is so important to understand and why fundamental reform of our land use policy is of paramount importance. Now, the Federal Lands Subcommittee has three principal goals: to restore public access to the public lands, to restore sound management to the public lands, and to restore the Federal Government as a good neighbor to those communities most impacted by the Federal lands. But overarching all of these imperatives is the simple fact that excessive Federal land ownership in the West has become a stultifying drag on our economies and a direct impediment to our ability to take good care of our public lands. I thought Congressman Gohmert put it best in a subcommittee hearing we held almost 2 years ago now when he compared the Federal Government's land use policies to the old miser whose great mansion has become the town eyesore--overgrown with weeds, paint peeling, roof dilapidated, broken windows--while the old miser spends all of his time and money plotting how he can buy his neighbor's land. There needs to be a proper balance between Federal ownership, State and local stewardship, and the productive private ownership of the lands. One look at the Federal footprint map should warn even the most casual observers that we have lost that balance and that we need to restore it. I, again, thank the gentleman from Texas for organizing this time today and for yielding time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the efforts of the Western Sierra Collegiate Academy's Distributive Education Clubs of America (DECA) chapter and the success of similar chapters throughout the country. Through teaching methods focused on development in marketing, finance, hospitality, and management, students participating in DECA are effectively prepared for their future careers. The Western Sierra Collegiate Academy's DECA chapter successfully equips emerging entrepreneurs with goal-setting, consensus-building, and project-management skills. By tapping into its students' varying interests and learning styles, DECA's adaptive business-development program engages students in a hands-on environment, including entrepreneur activities such as operating school stores, organizing fundraising events, and participating in business simulation competitions with other DECA chapters. DECA encourages its students to learn and practice smart business strategies, opening doors for students to develop and influence the business sector. The Western Sierra Collegiate Academy successfully engages its students in business practices and has been named a Gold-level School- Based Enterprise (SBE). In earning this award, Western Sierra Collegiate Academy has completed a detailed written description of how its chapter adheres to select business model standards in the above methods. Chapters are categorized into three SBE levels: bronze, silver, and gold. Western Sierra's Gold-level placement qualifies them to participate in the exclusive SBE Academy competition, held at the International Career Development Conference. Throughout secondary and post-secondary education, it is essential to instill in students common-sense principles utilized by today's businesses, and the Western Sierra Collegiate Academy's chapter reaffirms this notion. The teaching methods and interactions that DECA applies allows students to learn the significance and importance in one's ability to make choices and experience real-world business practices. The highly interactive nature of DECA allows students to understand the free market's benefits. The ability to teach these principles to students throughout high school and college is critical to our country's future free market drive and initiative. Knowledge and practice of entrepreneurship coupled with interactive applications of smart business strategies in an educational environment not only teaches students how to engage in business with the necessary skills required, but also allows students to develop their own well- informed career goals. Currently, DECA chapters are in over 3,500 high schools and over 275 colleges, engaging over 215,000 students. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Western Sierra Collegiate Academy DECA chapter for its tireless efforts to inspire and train successful entrepreneurs and look forward to following their successes.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, on the afternoon of June 22, a large number of Democrats brought the deliberations of the House of Representatives to a standstill in one of the most disgraceful and childish breaches of decorum in the history of this institution. In complete contempt of this House and the rule of law, they shouted down all with whom they disagreed. They blocked access to the microphones as Members sought to address the Chair, and they illegally occupied the Hall of the House, forcing an early adjournment and costing this House three full days of legislative deliberations. Abraham Lincoln said it best: ``There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.'' What we saw was the mob law of Occupy Wall Street brought to the House floor. They are seeking to use the recent terrorist attacks as justification for making it harder for law-abiding Americans to defend themselves. That is a strange logic, but so be it. They certainly have a right to their opinions. They have a right to express those opinions on the House floor, and they have a right to use all of the procedures of the House to act on their opinions. What they do not have is the right to prevent those with different views from exercising the same rights, and yet that is precisely what they did. These Democratic Members have many procedures and opportunities to bring their bills to the House for a vote. They could have executed a discharge petition to bring their bill immediately to the floor. They could have moved to have their bill inserted into any bill pending on the House floor, a common motion that we routinely hear and vote upon several times a week. The fact is their proposals were considered in the Senate and voted down. Their proposals were considered in the House committee and voted down. Their discharge petition is pending at this desk right now, awaiting enough signatures to execute it. Their only problem is they don't have enough votes. Well, sorry, that is called democracy. The majority of their colleagues simply disagree with them for some very good reasons. Their rights were honored and protected by the Republican majority under the rule of law, yet they denied those same rights to others by replacing the rule of law with the rule of the mob; and they did so on the most sacred ground of our democratic Republic, the Hall of the House of Representatives. Instead of working within the time-honored rules of the House to convince the majority of their way of thinking, they decided to tear down the rules. This was the lawless left on full display, and I hope the American people took a long, hard look at it and understand the threat to our democratic traditions and institutions that this conduct reveals. In recent days, we have seen leftist mobs assembled under a foreign flag violently attacking American citizens who were merely trying to exercise their right to peaceably assemble to support their candidate for President. We have seen this administration attempt to criminalize political dissent and use our institutions of government to intimidate people out of participating in our political process. And now we have watched this lawless behavior imported onto the floor of the House of Representatives. The House leadership decided not to confront this unprecedented spectacle as it unfolded, and I do not gainsay their decision here. It was obvious the Members involved were trying to provoke a physical confrontation, but serious damage was done that day to our orderly process of government and it cannot go unchallenged. Doing so would establish a dangerous and corrosive precedent, antithetical to everything which this institution and our country stands for. The Constitution provides that the House may sanction Members for disorderly behavior, and the Members responsible for the events of June 22 and 23 must be called to account for their actions. If we fail to do so, we will have replaced the House rules with rules for radicals.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, although I am still very angry at her for her decision to retire from the House at the end of this term. I don't think anyone blames her for wanting to deprive herself of the pleasure of our company, but I do blame her very much for depriving all of us of the pleasure of her company. She will be sorely missed. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3079 would transfer two 40-acre parcels owned by the Forest Service to the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians. These parcels are landlocked Forest Service property that are caught between a private property owner to the north and east, and tribally owned lands to the south and west that are currently in the process of being converted from fee to trust. These new parcels would be added to the tribe's existing tribal conservation area and would be forbidden from being used for gaming. This bill has the full support of the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors, the elected land use agency in this jurisdiction. The private property owner whose lands abuts this parcel also supports the transfer. Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate by Senators Feinstein and Boxer. The Federal Lands Subcommittee has held extensive hearings into the maintenance backlog of U.S. Forest Service properties and the horrific fire danger posed by these overgrown Federal lands. Acreage in the Sierra now typically carries four times the timber density that the land can support. This region has been devastated by forest fires in the past decade because the Federal lands have been so badly neglected. The land in question is designated as a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The tribal chairman testified that the Forest Service has done no thinning of these parcels throughout his lifetime. Now, in my district that spans the Sierra Nevada, forest fires have utterly destroyed more than 1,000 square miles of forest in just the last 3 years. The Rim Fire, the largest in the history of the Sierra and one of the largest in the history of the State, came within just a few miles of this parcel. When I visited the command center at the Rough Fire just south of Tuolumne in August, the beleaguered firefighters begged me to carry back one message to Congress: that forest treatment matters. Where the fire ran into treated acreage, it slowed enough to extinguish, but there just wasn't enough of it. So that fire burned for more than 10 weeks and destroyed 151,000 acres of forest land. By adding these parcels to the existing tribal conservation area, we ensure that this acreage will be properly maintained, which means additional fire protection for the region. It will add 80 acres of properly managed and maintained forest land where excess timber can be carried out before it burns out. And in association with the tribe's other conservation work, that just could make the difference in stopping or slowing the next catastrophic fire in the region. It is, at least, a start. I thank the gentlewoman for the time, and I thank the House for hearing this bill today and ask for its adoption.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the students, faculty, and staff of Alder Creek Middle School in Truckee, California for receiving the 2016 Schools to Watch award, which is presented to the top 145 middle schools nationwide. This is a great accomplishment for Alder Creek and Northern California. The Schools to Watch award recognizes Alder Creek's academic excellence, developmental responsiveness, and social equity after a rigorous review process to identify middle schools achieving excellence in each category. Alder Creek has exemplified academic excellence by challenging its students and encouraging them to use their minds in ways that surpass typical middle school curriculum. The instruction and assessment at schools recognized for receiving the Schools to Watch award are aligned with ideals that focus on every student's understanding of essential concepts and skills that are applicable beyond the classroom. The teaching methods at Alder Creek involve a variety of engaging and effective activities, allowing students' talents to flourish. Additionally, Alder Creek is praised for its ability to successfully address and accommodate the various developmental challenges of early adolescence and the needs of each of its students. Alder Creek provides each student with a personalized environment that supports unique ethical, social, physical, and intellectual aspects of development. Alder Creek's teachers support every student's curiosity and creativity in a well-organized, encouraging environment coupled with relevant curriculum catered to the personal interests of the adolescents. Mr. Speaker, Alder Creek Middle School has earned a prestigious spot as one of the best in the country. I am honored to share this proud moment with the nation and congratulate Alder Creek's faculty, staff, and students on their tremendous accomplishment.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for pointing out just how much we are wasting in this program. If the Metro stop at the Pentagon cost us $10 billion a year, maybe we should close it; but that is not the point of this bill. We have to ask ourselves how serious we are about meeting the defense needs of our Nation. We have been constantly warned how poorly funded our military is. The program this amendment would end is an estimated $10 billion of sheer waste, grossly inflated energy costs that come directly out of our military preparedness--$10 billion. Divide that by the number of families in America, and it comes to about $80 per family. It makes a mockery of claims that we have cut the military to the bone and puts the lie to any claim that we are serious about meeting our basic defense needs without bankrupting our country. I would remind the House of Admiral Mullen's chilling warning that in his professional military judgment, our greatest national security threat is the national debt, because before we can provide for the common defense, we have to be able to pay for it, and waste like this robs us of our ability to defend our Nation and the Treasury upon which our defense depends. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment forbids scarce defense dollars from being spent to fund two executive orders and several other provisions of law that require the military to squander billions of dollars on so-called green energy. The House adopted this amendment by voice vote last year and the year before, and I hope it will do so again. We have been told this year that the defense budget is so tight that the Air Force has to scavenge museums for spare aircraft parts. Yet, it seems we have plenty of defense money to indulge the green energy mandates that are imposed upon our Armed Forces. The GAO reports that these mandates have cost the Navy as much as $150 per gallon for jet fuel. In 2012, the Navy was forced to purchase 450,000 gallons of biofuel for its so-called green fleet at the cost of $26.60 per gallon when conventional petroleum costs just $2.50 per gallon. These mandates forced the Air Force to pay $59 per gallon for 11,000 gallons of biofuel in 2012--10 times more than regular jet fuel cost. And it is not just biofuels. Two years ago, the Pentagon was required to purchase over 1,000 Chevy Volts at a subsidized price of $40,000 each. As Senator Coburn's office pointed out, each one of these $40,000 Chevy Volts represents the choice not to provide an entire infantry platoon with all new rifles, or 50,000 rounds of ammunition that cannot be used for realistic training. These green energy mandates have required the Army and Navy to install solar arrays in various facilities. At Naval Station Norfolk, the Navy spent $21 million to install a 10-acre solar array, which will supply a grand total of 2 percent of the base's electricity. According to the Inspector General's Office, this project will save enough money to pay for itself in only 447 years. Too bad solar panels only last 25 years. We don't know how much all of these mandates waste because, as the GAO reports, ``There is currently no comprehensive inventory of which Federal agencies are implementing renewable energy related initiatives and the types of initiatives they are implementing.'' But outside estimates are as much as $10 billion for the Department of Defense last year, a figure that continues to grow. We are told this program is necessary to maintain flexibility. Well, shouldn't flexibility free us to get cheaper and more plentiful fuels rather than more expensive and more exotic ones? We are told the military should do its part for the environment, as if it is possible to fight an environmentally sensitive war. I feel the real reason for this wasteful spending is part of an ideological agenda imposed on our military that will pointlessly consume billions of defense dollars, namely, to keep money flowing to politically well-connected green energy companies that can't get anybody else to buy their products. As long as this product continues to consume our defense dollars, we cannot say that we are stretching our defense budget to the utmost. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the terrorist attack on Orlando should bring into sharp focus the growing threat that our Nation faces from Islamic terrorism, and that begins with realizing that although Islam is a religion, it is often accompanied by a poisonous political ideology that is antithetical to everything that our country stands for. That ideology now poses a direct threat to the liberty and safety of our people, and we have every right to defend ourselves against it. We knew for years that the terrorist's father was broadcasting pro- Taliban and anti-American rhetoric aimed principally at a large and growing Afghan Islamic population within the United States. We knew that the terrorist, himself, had traveled repeatedly to Saudi Arabia under mysterious circumstances, associated with known terrorists and Islamic radicals in the United States, and expressed the most virulent anti-American views. And we took no action because there are far more instances of such threats than we can begin to assess or address. This administration has drastically increased the admission of refugees from regions where overwhelming majorities believe in imposing sharia law. Those who are fleeing sharia law and Islamist political ideology should be welcome in this country at assimilable levels; but those who are coming here to impose it are a direct threat to our Constitution, and they have no business being admitted to our shores. Yet this administration makes no distinction between the two. Indeed, earlier this year, when Governor Rick Scott of Florida, acting on behalf of law enforcement, requested information on the Islamic immigrants being inserted into his State, he was refused that vital public safety information. While seeking to rapidly increase the number of Islamists being admitted to this country, this administration has failed not only to enforce our immigration laws, but it has actively undermined those laws. As a result of these deliberate government policies, we are enduring Islamist attacks within our borders that will continue to increase in both frequency and severity. There is no blinking at the fact that these policies have encouraged a large and growing fifth column that is violently hostile to our country, and it has become deeply embedded within our communities. San Bernardino and Orlando were just the first bloody foretaste of what is to come until and unless these policies are stopped and reversed. Last year, the House passed the SAFE Act. That is an acronym for Safety Against Foreign Enemies. It was the first tentative step toward properly screening refugees from hotbeds of Islamic extremism. It merely required affirmative verification of a refugee's lack of hostile intent if they were coming from Islamist strongholds in Iraq and Syria. 135 Democrats in this House opposed the SAFE Act, and Senate Democrats killed it in January at the behest of their President. The very same politicians who will not allow us even to confirm the intent of Islamists entering America are at the same time using the Orlando atrocity as an excuse to disarm loyal and law-abiding Americans. Within minutes of the attack, the left began to use this terrorist atrocity to justify more restrictions on the rights of Americans to defend themselves. They would have us believe that terrorists who are bent on destroying our country by violently killing Americans will somehow make one exception to their contempt for our Nation by meticulously obeying our gun control laws. The leftists tell us to leave it to the police. Really? In Orlando, it took 3 hours for police to secure the scene and confront the attacker, while hostages were being shot and the wounded were left to bleed to death--3 hours. In San Bernardino, the terrorists had already fled before police even arrived at the scene. The first line of defense against an armed terrorist is an armed American; yet the Democrats seek to make it harder for Americans to arm themselves, while increasing the threat posed by mass immigration from those countries where Islamist ideology is rampant. Is it possible that they don't understand that there is an international arms market and that terrorists can get their hands on any kinds of weapons they want as effortlessly as teenagers can buy pot? While the Orlando terrorist got his guns legally, he could just as easily have gotten them illegally. But that is not the case of law- abiding American citizens. Law-abiding citizens obey our laws; terrorists do not. The left's vision for our country is one in which Americans cannot shoot back and must helplessly wait to be rescued while they are being terrorized by Islamic extremists who should never have been in this country in the first place. And that is going to continue in this country until it wakes up to the danger that it faces and takes decisive action at the ballot box. That is ultimately the choice before us: we can either suffer increasingly violent attacks on increasingly defenseless Americans, or we can choose to finally take seriously the nature of the enemy we face and finally demand leaders who will secure our borders, empower Americans to defend themselves, and act forthrightly to defend our country. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I do not support the war on coal that is waged by this administration and my friends on the left, but I do support the war on waste, and I support this amendment based upon that fiscal imperative. Now we are told our defense budget is so stretched that we now have to scavenge museums for aircraft parts. Yet there appears to be plenty of money to squander in a corrupt earmark that dates back to 1961. As has been pointed out, that earmark requires that one American Air Force base in Kaiserslautern, Germany, has to purchase 9,000 tons of coal a year at a grossly inflated price, plus the cost of transporting this overpriced coal across the Atlantic Ocean and halfway across the European Continent. The latest excuse we just heard is, well, otherwise we have to buy coal from Russia. Well, why in the world would we want to do that? One company in Poland produces 48 million tons of coal from 23 mines. It produces more coal in an hour than this base uses in a year. And the objection seems particularly ludicrous, considering that the NDAA authorizes hundreds of millions of dollars for rocket engines purchased from Russia. The Pentagon and successive Presidents have consistently protested this waste, but these protests have fallen on deaf ears in Congress, even while we are told that our defense spending has been cut to the bone. If we don't change the spending trajectory of this government, the Congressional Budget Office warns that, in 6 years, interest on the national debt will exceed what we spent this year for our defense. That makes rooting out waste like this a national defense imperative.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the House is expected to take up the PROMESA bill today regarding the Puerto Rican debt crisis. This bill has serious implications to every taxpayer in the country. PROMESA applies a form of chapter 9 bankruptcy to the general obligation bonds of Puerto Rico that are guaranteed by the Commonwealth's constitution. Article VI, section 8 of Puerto Rico's constitution explicitly provides that ``interest on the public debt and amortization thereof shall first be paid.'' Well, this bill ignores the Puerto Rican constitution and breaks that promise, and here is why this is so important to the rest of the country: Every State government has similar constitutional provisions that guarantee its general obligation bonds. This is what allows States to borrow at extremely low interest rates: because their debt is constitutionally guaranteed and, therefore, the risk of default is extremely low. If Congress is willing to undermine a territory's constitutionally guaranteed bonds today, there is every reason to believe it would be willing to undermine a State's guarantee tomorrow. This, in turn, invites credit markets to question such guarantees as being no longer secured on constitutional bedrock but, rather, dependent upon the shifting whims of Congress. This, in turn, means the value of these bonds is devalued, and interest rates paid by taxpayers on that debt will increase. The Governors of six States have already raised this warning, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, whose credit is directly undermined by PROMESA, wants out of the bill for the same reason. Now, PROMESA could have respected the $18 billion of constitutionally guaranteed debt and focused instead on restructuring the $54 billion of Puerto Rican municipal debt that is not constitutionally guaranteed. After all, there is no reason to treat San Juan's municipal debt any differently than San Jose's. But constitutionally issued debt is fundamentally different, and its reliability must be maintained. Tellingly, supporters of this bill voted down just such an amendment in committee. Supporters have said they have addressed this concern by inserting instructions to the control board to ``respect the relative lawful priorities in the constitution, other laws or agreements.'' But ironically, one of those ``other laws'' the control board is instructed to respect is the government's repudiation of that debt. Furthermore, the same section instructs the control board to provide ``adequate funding for public pension systems'' and includes other contradictory instructions. The only possible interpretation of these provisions is that the sanctity of the sovereign debt is subject to balancing and, therefore, subordination to junior claims by the control board. Just last week, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and the White House admitted that this was both the intent and effect of the bill. Meanwhile, another provision of PROMESA prevents lawful bondholders from enforcing their claims in court for a period of 6 months but doesn't prevent the government from paying out junior claims during this period. Indeed, in anticipation of this bill, the new budget for Puerto Rico increases general fund spending, while it radically reduces its debt service payments. Honoring the rule of law and maintaining the Commonwealth's full faith and credit guarantee would be a powerful signal to bond markets that the United States stands by its promises, even when it is inconvenient. Under current law, it is in the interest of both sides, debtor and creditor, to work out terms that both can live with to restructure and repay this debt. Indeed, until the prospect of a congressional rescue arose, Puerto Rico was negotiating terms of a debt restructuring with the mutual consent of its creditors. It is also in the interest of the people of Puerto Rico to uphold the full faith and credit clause of their constitution, which will be vitally important for them to reenter the credit market once their affairs are put back in order. Puerto Rico faces both crisis and opportunity: a crisis born of slavish devotion to failed leftist economic policies, and an opportunity to replace those policies with proven free market solutions that can create a fresh start for the people of Puerto Rico and shine as a beacon of hope for other similarly afflicted States. I fear the net result of this legislation will be to spread the crisis to other States with heavy debts by increasing their debt service costs.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the state and federal park rangers who have served Yosemite National Park over the last 150 years. Specifically, I rise to honor Mr. Galen Clark, the first appointed ``guardian'' (park ranger) of Yosemite in 1866. As the first ranger, Mr. Clark served 22 years while dedicating his life to protect and administer the nation's first great outdoors natural park at Yosemite. Since then, the park has served over 185 million visitors. Set aside by President Abraham Lincoln in 1864 with the express intent ``to be held for public use, resort, and recreation for all time,'' the Yosemite Valley is a national treasure that belongs to the American people in perpetuity. President Lincoln made this land available to the public by understanding and respecting the government's role ``of the people, by the people, and for the people,'' describing the philosophy behind the dedication of Yosemite. Today, the National Park Service administers more than 400 national parks throughout the United States by partnering with communities to preserve historical landmarks and create outdoor recreational places. The California Department of Parks and Recreation manages 280 parks, preserving some of the finest resources found in California. Ranger Clark served honorably as Yosemite's first park ranger, creating a prestigious fraternal order for those who have followed in his footsteps, embodying Thomas Jefferson's words: ``When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property.'' Recognition of Mr. Clark's appointment as the first park ranger is a momentous event, offering an opportunity to reflect, highlight, and honor the history and contribution of park staff over the last 150 years. Mr. Speaker, Ranger Clark and all other park rangers who have committed their lives to the preservation of Yosemite National Park as a place of ``public use, resort, and recreation for all time'' deserve to be remembered for their service and dedication for ensuring public access and enjoyment of this extraordinary national treasure.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4119) to authorize the exchange of certain land located in Gulf Islands National Seashore, Jackson County, Mississippi, between the National Park Service and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4119, introduced by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo), authorizes the Park Service to convey to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Post 5699, 1\1/2\ acres located within the Gulf Islands National Seashore in Jackson County, Mississippi, in exchange for a 2.2-acre parcel of land opened by the VFW post. This bill benefits both the VFW post and the Park Service, as it provides the VFW post with permanent access to their facility via a long driveway currently owned by the Park Service, while adding land contiguous to Gulf Islands National Seashore. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of its passage today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo), the sponsor of this bill and my friend.