Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3620) to amend the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Improvement Act to provide access to certain vehicles serving residents of municipalities adjacent to the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, and for other purposes.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

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 materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2880) to redesignate the Martin Luther King, Junior, National Historic Site in the State of Georgia, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the law that established the Treasury Department already instructs it to manage the revenue to support the public credit. This already includes prioritizing payments to assure the national debt is always honored, as the Constitution commands. Without this, a stalemate on the debt could endanger the Nation's credit. Well, during recent debates over raising the debt limit, the Treasury Department denied that it can prioritize to preserve the Nation's credit. Thanks to the Financial Services Committee's investigation, we now know this was a deliberate and calculated lie told to increase pressure on Congress. Emails revealed that Federal Reserve officials were incredulous and appalled that the administration would make such statements because they ran a severe risk of panicking credit markets. This amendment simply requires that, when we approach the debt limit, the Treasury Department tells Congress and the public what it is actually preparing to do to assure this Nation's creditors that their loans to this government are completely secure.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office just announced for the first time in our history that Federal healthcare payments now exceed Social Security benefits. Not coincidentally, it also warned that our deficit is again ballooning out of control. ObamaCare forced millions of Americans out of their low-cost catastrophic coverage and basic employee plans and into Medicaid--the dysfunctional government poverty program. The result is skyrocketing costs in that program in which surgical patients are 13 percent more likely to die than those with no health insurance at all, according to a recent University of Virginia study. Mr. Obama promised, if we liked our plans and our doctors, we could keep them, and that ObamaCare would save an average family $2,500 a year. In fact, millions lost their doctors and their plans while premiums have increased an average of more than $3,500 per family. This ain't working, and it is time to move on to something that does.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, Congress gave the EPA jurisdiction over navigable bodies of water large enough to support ship traffic. This EPA rule takes control over virtually every body of water in the United States, including many agricultural and drainage ditches, ornamental lakes, and small creeks and streams on private property. Now, in 2010, Mr. Oberstar introduced a bill to grant them this power, and the Pelosi Congress refused to pass it; so the EPA simply decided to seize that power anyway. This not only threatens to upend 150 years of State water and property rights laws, it also presents us with a grave challenge to our Constitution. If it is allowed to stand, this rule means that Congress' exclusive legislative powers have now passed unrestricted to the executive, including the power to repeal existing laws that guarantee to States supremacy over their own waters and the power to amend laws to seize vast new executive authority in direct defiance of this Congress. This rule must not stand. It cannot stand.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, ever since the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, leftist politicians have called for more restrictions on gun ownership for Americans. These are the same politicians who have worked for years to open our Nation to unprecedented and indiscriminate immigration from hotbeds of Islamic extremism. The most effective defense against an armed terrorist is an armed American. If one person in that room in San Bernardino had been able to return fire, many innocent lives would have been saved. But Californians are subject to the most restrictive gun laws in the country, making it very difficult for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment right to defend themselves. In a society denied its right of self-defense, the gunman is king. I repeat: the most effective defense against an armed terrorist is an armed American. Yet, the President and his followers seek to increase the number of terrorists entering through porous borders and lax immigration laws while, at the same time, seeking to decrease the number of armed Americans. Their latest ploy was announced by the President on Sunday and has been parroted by his Congressional allies this week, to the point of disrupting the work of the House. In the President's words, ``Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun.'' He asked: What could possibly be the argument against that? Well, while serving in the California State Senate a decade ago, I discovered suddenly I couldn't check in for a flight. When I asked why, I was told I was on this government list. The experience was absolutely Kafkaesque. My first reaction was to ask, ``Well, why am I on that list? ``Well, we can't tell you. ``Well, what criteria do you use? ``That is classified. ``How do I get off that list? ``You can't.'' I soon discovered that another California State Senator had been placed on that list. A few months later, U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy found himself on that list. I at least had the Office of the Sergeant at Arms of the State Senate to work through, something an ordinary American would not. Even so, it took months of working through that office with repeated petitions to the government to get my name removed from that list. The farce of it all was this: I was advised, in the meantime, just to fly under my middle name, which I did without incident. In my case, it turns out it was a case of mistaken identity with an IRA activist the British Government was mad at. This could happen to any American. The fine point of it is this: During this administration, the IRS has been used extensively to harass and intimidate ordinary Americans for exercising their First Amendment rights. What the President proposes is that, on the whim of any Federal bureaucrat, an American can be denied their Second Amendment rights as well with no opportunity to confront their accuser, contest the evidence, or avail themselves of any of their other due process rights under the Constitution. The concept that the left is seeking to instill in our law is that mere suspicion by a bureaucrat is sufficient to deny law-abiding American citizens their constitutional rights under the law. Given the left's demonstrated hostility to freedom of speech and due process of law, it is not hard to see where this is leading us. I would support the President's proposal if it established a judicial process where an individual could only be placed on this list once he had been accorded his constitutional rights to be informed of the charges, to be given his day in court, to be accorded the right to confront his accuser and contest the evidence against him and submit himself to a decision by a jury of his peers. But that is the farthest thing from the left's agenda. The President's proposal would have done nothing to stop the carnage in San Bernardino, where the terrorists were not on any watch list. Indeed, one was admitted from Saudi Arabia after the vetting that the President keeps assuring us is rigorous and thorough. And several of the guns used in this massacre weren't even acquired directly but, rather, through a third party. Of course the American people don't want terrorists to have guns. The American people don't want terrorists in our country in the first place. But the President's policies have left our Nation's gate wide open while he seeks to take from Americans their means of self-defense. So I leave off as I began. The best defense against an armed terrorist is an armed American. That is what the Second Amendment is all about. It is an absolutely essential pillar of our security. Our Constitution is our best defense of all. It must be defended against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, every now and then, we have a chance to stop an injustice and restore the fundamental purpose of our government to secure the inalienable rights of the people. In this instance, the Federal Government has become destructive of this end. It is attempting to seize thousands of acres of private land lawfully owned by American citizens along a 116-mile stretch of the Red River between Texas and Oklahoma. Mr. Thornberry's bill would stop this injustice, reassert the rule of law, and restore the unclouded title of these lands to their rightful owners. In 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court established the rules for determining the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma that established the property rights over this land. For nearly a century, the Federal Government recognized and respected the property lines established by this ruling. Property owners purchased and sold this land and, in some cases, passed it down from generation to generation. These property owners, in good faith, dutifully paid taxes on their lands year after year, invested in these lands, maintained them, cultivated them, and improved them. Out of the blue, the Bureau of Land Management has now announced that it is arbitrarily changing the boundaries established by the Supreme Court and is seizing this land for itself. This outrageous claim clouds the property rights along this vast territory. It is based on the flimsiest of pretexts, a limited survey over a fraction of this land that ignored the 1923 Supreme Court decree that originally established these boundary lines. In other words, it is a guess based upon a fraud. The Red River Private Property Protection Act rights this obvious wrong. It requires the Federal Government, in conjunction with the affected State and tribal governments, to make clear the true ownership of this property. It tells the BLM to back off, and authorizes a collaborative survey to be conducted by the affected State and tribal governments, according to the rule of law established by the Supreme Court. And if this new survey determines any errors in the old, it provides that the landowners who have poured their blood, toil, tears, and sweat into this land can repurchase it for a $1.25 per acre, the price set by the Color of Title Act to resolve disputes of this nature. Without this act, title to the farms and homes will be clouded for decades while this matter drags on through the courts. Meanwhile, the BLM's assertion that it has regulatory jurisdiction would have devastating impacts on local landowners and businesses and make it much more difficult to encourage economic development in the region. We should also beware of an amendment sought by several neighboring tribal governments that attempts to seize this property for themselves. Despite the fact that this bill is to be amended to reaffirm all tribal treaties to assure that the tribes are an integral part of the new survey process, and are guaranteed the right of first refusal over any lands they currently occupy, they are seeking to replace the injustice perpetrated by the BLM with an injustice of their own. Whether private property is seized by the Federal Government or by a tribal government makes no difference to the innocent victims whose land is being stolen, and it is an equal affront to the just principles of property rights that this bill seeks to restore. Tribal governments whose own sovereignty and property rights are often threatened by this Federal Government ought to be particularly sensitive when that same government threatens the rights of others. Government exists to protect our natural rights, including our property rights. This bill realigns our government with its stated purpose.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following statement published in the Washington Times on November 18, 2015, by Mrs. Maryam Rajavi of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, condemning the recent terror attacks in Paris. On behalf of the Iranian people and the Iranian Resistance for freedom and democracy, I strongly condemn the terrorist attacks and massacre of defenseless people in Paris on November 13, 2015. I extend my condolences to the Republic's President and government as well as the French people for the loss of life in these attacks, which are true examples of crime against humanity. I express my heartfelt sympathies to the victims' families. Today, our hearts bleed for the French nation. The people of Iran deeply feel the bitterness of these crimes. In these difficult moments, the Iranian people can empathize with the French people and share their grief, because for the past 37 years they have been suffering under the religious and terrorist dictatorship, which is the Godfather of ISIS. Today, humanity's conscience is in shock and disbelief, wondering how such crimes can be committed in the name of God and under the banner of religion. Fundamentalism has nothing to do with Islam, whether it is under the pretext of Shiite extremism and religious tyranny or velayat-e faqih (absolute clerical rule) or under the pretext of Sunni extremism and Daesh (ISIS). Such inhumane crimes have no connection to Islam, and are evils that represent enmity to peace and humanity everywhere. Crimes committed by the religious fascism ruling Iran, including 120,000 political executions, hostage-taking and export of terrorism, have nothing to do with Islam or the Iranian people. For this reason, I urge all Muslims to strongly condemn the crimes committed in Paris and to not allow the conduct of these ruthless terrorists to occur in the name of Islam and Muslims. I also call on them to stand firm against such extremism, which violates the true teachings of Islam. The Assad regime in Syria and its prime sponsor the mullahs ruling Iran are the chief sociopolitical enablers of ISIS, with their slaughter of 300,000 innocent people and displacing of more than half of the Syrian population. As long as this dictatorship rules in Damascus with the backing of the religious fascism ruling Iran, ISIS will continue to thrive and extend its scourge of death from the Middle East to Europe. At the same time, Iran's ruling mullahs, who are the primary beneficiaries of these crimes, are brazenly blaming the French government for the attacks. According to what they published in a news agency affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), their demand is for France to abandon its firm policy against the Assad dictatorship in light of the November 13th massacre and to instead ``coordinate its efforts with the Islamic countries,'' namely the mullahs in Tehran. In such circumstances, it has become increasingly vital for France to insist on the removal of Bashar Assad from power and to adopt a more decisive policy in resolving the Syrian crisis. Experience has shown that firmness is the most effective and the only principled and correct approach to confronting terrorists. Once again, I extend my most sincere sympathies to the people of France and pray for a speedy recover for the injured.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, there is no need today to catalog the litany of promises made and broken by this government to the American Indian nations. The sum total of these broken promises amounted to the banishment of these, the first Americans, to the most desolate and undesirable lands in the Nation. We left them with one thing and one thing only. We left them sovereignty over their lands. In the past half century, many of these tribes have created, from that sovereignty, great engines of prosperity with which to provide for themselves and their posterity; and suddenly, our government's disinterest in their welfare, its benign neglect of their affairs, has changed. Now that they are prosperous, our government has developed a canine appetite to intervene in their affairs. For 70 years after the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act, the Federal Government recognized the internal independence of these tribal governments established of, by, and for their rightful members. It recognized that unless Congress specified otherwise, the Indian nations were free to conduct their own affairs on their sovereign lands and to organize their enterprises according to their own traditions, customs, conditions, and necessities--that is, until 2004, when the National Labor Relations Board decided to shatter these decades of legal precedents and usurp the legislative powers of the Congress. The NLRA was never intended to apply to governments, and the American Indian nations have always been recognized as governments--that is, until the NLRB decided to radically and fundamentally change the law that created it in the first place. The question before the House is whether Congress will reassert its authority over a rogue executive agency and, for a change, honor the promises of tribal sovereignty made to these nations more than 100 years ago.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, this bill simply guarantees that the sovereign debt of the United States will be paid in full and on time--period. How could that possibly be controversial? Yet in today's political environment, it is. The sovereign debt of the United States is what makes it possible for us to pay all of our other obligations in this era of chronic deficit spending that we are now in. This bill provides an absolute guarantee of that credit. Although the Constitution explicitly commands that the public debt of the United States is not to be questioned, it provides no practical mechanism to achieve this aim. This bill provides that mechanism. It says that, whenever we reach the debt limit, the Treasury Secretary can continue to borrow to pay interest and principal on the debt. It amazes me that many of our friends on the other side of the aisle support loan guarantees to foreign corporations and to special interest groups, but they are unwilling to guarantee the loans to our own government. Mr. Speaker, the national debt is now larger than the entire economy. It has doubled in the last decade. The interest on that debt is the fastest growing component of the Federal budget. It threatens to exceed our entire defense budget in just 8 years. If there is ever any doubt over the security and reliability of the debt owed by this government, the rates we pay to service our debt would quickly rise and sink our country in a tidal wave of red ink. Now, this is not a substitute for raising the debt limit. We all recognize that in this era of chronic deficit spending under this administration that is going to have to happen. We have a responsibility to raise the debt limit, but we also have a responsibility to review the policies that are driving that debt. The Default Prevention Act says loudly and clearly to the world that, no matter how much we may differ and quarrel here in Washington, the sovereign debt of this Nation is guaranteed and that their loans to it are absolutely safe. We hear the charge that this would pay debts owed to foreign governments before paying our own troops. Actually, more than half of our debt is held by Americans, often in American pension funds. China holds just 7 percent. But whether our loans come from China or from Charleston, without the Nation's credit, we cannot pay our troops or meet all of our other obligations. Opponents charge that this is an excuse not to pay our other debts. Well, what nonsense. This maintains the credit that is necessary to pay our other debts. Most States guarantee that their sovereign debt will be secure and they have done so for generations. Do our friends actually suggest that any of these States has ever used these guarantees as an excuse not to pay their other bills? On the contrary, by protecting their credit first, they actually support and maintain their ability to pay for all of their other obligations. The President contends that this is tantamount to a family saying it would make its house payment, but not its car payment. I sure hope he is getting better economic advice than that. But let's continue the analogy. If the family is living on its credit cards, as we are as a Nation, it had better make the minimum payment on its credit card first or it won't be able to pay all the rest of its bills. And when that family has to increase its credit limit because it is not spending within its means, it had better have a serious conversation about what is driving its debt and what to do about it. Principled disputes over how the debt limit is addressed are going to happen from time to time. Just a few years ago then-Senator Barack Obama vigorously opposed an increase in the debt limit sought by the Bush administration. When these controversies erupt, as they inevitably do in a free society, it is imperative that credit markets are supremely confident that their loans to the United States are secure. Providing such a guarantee would prevent a future debt crisis and give Congress the calm it needs to negotiate the changes that must be made to bring our debt under control as we authorize still more debt. The voices in opposition to this bill are the same voices that have cheered the most profligate spending and borrowing binge in the history of this Nation. It is time that we managed our affairs responsibly, and guaranteeing our debt is an important step in doing so.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I know that this great Hall has become a national gallery for hyperbole, but I think the opponents of this measure have taken it to a whole new level. Pay China first, what xenophobic nonsense. China holds about 7 percent of our debt. Most of our debt is owed to Americans, much of it in pension funds and debts to Social Security pensioners. If we don't maintain our credit, we can't meet any of our other obligations, including our troops in the field. And if there is even a suggestion that our sovereign debt is not absolutely secure, we could see a spike in interest costs that will take money away from the very programs that the Democrats say they are trying to defend. That is the reality of it. This is a question over whether we should guarantee the sovereign debt of the United States, and I would ask again: Why is it and how is it that my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle can get wildly enthusiastic about taxpayers being forced to guarantee loans to foreign corporations, foreign governments, or domestic special interests and yet not be willing to guarantee the full faith and credit of the United States simply by allowing the Treasury Secretary to continue to borrow to meet our interest and principal payments if we should ever reach a point where the debt limit has been reached? It is the debate over the debt limit that tends to roil markets. We are going to meet our debt obligations, but that debate that is required to review the policies that are driving our debt is what roils those markets. This calms that debate. This assures everyone who makes loans to the Federal Government that their loans are secure. This keeps our interest costs down, and it guarantees the credit of the United States that is necessary to meet all of our other obligations.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, we are asked: Why don't you just raise the debt limit? Let me again make this very clear. As long as we spend more than we take in, we have a responsibility to raise the debt limit. Republicans acknowledge that responsibility. Democrats acknowledge that responsibility. Yet, with that responsibility comes a concomitant duty to review the policies that are driving that debt. The Republicans acknowledge this responsibility. The Democrats do not. That is the fine point of the matter. That is a policy debate, and it is controversial, but that controversy should not roil credit markets and threaten to increase the cost of our borrowing. Given the size of the debt that we are carrying--and this administration has nearly doubled it by its policies--even a small increase in interest rates could mean a catastrophic increase in interest payments, and those increased interest payments in the tens-- possibly, hundreds--of billions of dollars would come at the cost of every other program that the Democrats cherish. We keep hearing about the S&P downgrading our credit rating in 2011. Let me remind them that, for months prior to that downgrade, the S&P demanded that we reduce our 10-year projected deficit by at least $4 trillion or they would downgrade our sovereign debt. We ultimately only reduced it by $1.2 trillion because of the voices that we now hear raised against this bill, and the S&P followed through on that threat. My Democratic colleagues are right, a threat not to pay interest and principal on our debt is the biggest threat to our credit. That is precisely the threat this bill takes off the table by guaranteeing our sovereign debt. My friends are correct that failure to pay our other bills would be a very bad thing, and it is much to be avoided. There is no dispute in that. As long as the debt limit has to be increased, there is going to be controversy; and that controversy, whether during Republican or Democratic Congresses or Republican or Democratic administrations, must not be allowed to provoke an increase in borrowing costs because we have frightened credit markets. This is not a threat to default. It is a promise not to default on the sovereign debt that we use to fund everything else that we do. My friends on the left make no distinction between sovereign debt and our other obligations. That may explain some of the reasons we are in the mess we are in. The fact is our sovereign debt is what makes it possible to pay for our other obligations as long as we continue to spend beyond our means. This measure guarantees the sovereign debt. The policies advocated by the opponents of this motion are precisely the policies that have caused our country to wander now through 7 years down a dark road of debt, doubt, despair, and economic malaise. It is time for a new morning in America, and that begins with guaranteeing the sovereign debt of this Nation. I ask for your support for this bill.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to thank the Rules Committee for reporting H.R. 692 to the floor. This Nation now staggers under more than $18 trillion of debt, nearly a $7.5 trillion run up by this administration alone. The interest on that debt is one of the fastest growing components of the Federal budget. If there is ever any doubt over the security and reliability of the debt owed by this government, the interest rates that lenders charge us would quickly rise and overwhelm us. Now, the Democrats say, well, just raise the debt limit, and, of course, we realize in this era of chronic deficit spending-- establishing new records under this administration--that we have to do so. Congress alone has the power to incur debt, and the debt limit is the method by which we discharge our responsibility; but when we do so, it is also Congress' responsibility to review and revise the policies that are driving that debt. The fundamental problem under both Democratic and Republican Congresses is that this process is fraught with controversy. The bigger the debt, the bigger the controversy; and the bigger the controversy, the more likely that credit markets are to demand higher interest payments to meet their greater risk. Given the size of our debt, that could produce an interest tidal wave that could sink our budget and our Nation along with it. The Default Prevention Act simply provides that, if the debt limit is reached, the Treasury Secretary may continue to borrow above that limit for the sole purpose of paying principal and interest that is due. It is an absolute guarantee that the debt of the United States will be honored. Most States have various laws to guarantee payment of their debts. In fact, a few years ago, Ben Bernanke praised these State provisions for maintaining confidence in their bonds. It amazes me that we can't all agree on this simple principle: that we should guarantee the loans made to the Federal Government. That is all this bill does. Yet we have heard opposition from the other side, and they basically make two charges. One is that this pays foreign governments first while shorting our troops. We just heard that from the gentleman from Florida. Well, what xenophobic nonsense. The fact is most of our debt is held by Americans--often, in pension funds--so it protects Americans far more than foreign governments. But they miss the main point. It is the Nation's credit that makes it possible to meet all of our other obligations. When you are living off your credit card, as our Nation is at the moment, you had better make your minimum payment first or you won't be able to pay all of your other bills. In the veto threat, the President leveled the other charges we heard from the gentleman from Florida, that it is just an excuse for not paying our other bills. Well, do they actually believe that these other States that have guaranteed their sovereign debts for generations have ever used these guarantees as an excuse not to pay their other bills? On the contrary, by providing clear and unambiguous mandates to protect their credit first, they actually support and maintain their ability to pay for all of their other obligations. So let me be crystal clear: delaying payment on any of our obligations would be unprecedented and dangerous. There is one thing, though, that could do even more damage than delaying payment on our other bills, and that is the mere threat of a default on our sovereign debt. This measure takes that threat off the table, and it ensures credit markets that their investments in the United States are as certain as anything can be in life. A few years ago, Senator Barack Obama vigorously and forcefully opposed a debt limit sought by the Bush administration. He said it was a failure of leadership. Well, I have never equated Senator Obama's opposition to the debt limit increase as anything other than a principled and well-placed concern over the proper management of our finances. It is sad that he cannot give the opposition the same courtesy. Mr. Speaker, we may disagree over the appropriate role of Congress in adjusting the debt limit, but at least can't we all agree that during these disputes the sovereign debt of the United States is never in doubt? That is all that this bill says; that is all that this bill does. Mr. Speaker, let's pass this rule and proceed with consideration of the bill.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's debt is eating us alive, and without changing our disastrous fiscal course, the CBO warns that our interest costs will exceed our entire defense budget in just 8 years. For the first time in a decade, this Congress has adopted a budget to restore fiscal solvency. Having set that course, we now must stay that course. That is what the appropriations process is all about. For months, Senate Democrats have blocked consideration of any of the appropriations bills we have sent them unless we discard the budget and put our country back on the road to bankruptcy. Today we have reached the fiscal deadline. A temporary funding bill is necessary to keep the government open, and I would support it if the House and Senate leadership announced a timetable to complete our work and pledged to keep to that timetable. Without that announcement, a short-term CR simply continues us on an unsustainable course.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on behalf of myself and Mr. Costa, to honor the 125th anniversary of Yosemite National Park. October 1, 2015 marks 125 years since President Benjamin Harrison signed the legislation establishing our third national park. This law preserved over 1,500 square miles for the public use, resort, and recreation of the American people for all time. Indeed, approximately 275 million people enjoy the majesty of the park annually. The creation of Yosemite National Park added Tuolumne Meadows, the park's high country, Hetch Hetchy, and lands surrounding Yosemite Valley to those areas already protected by the Yosemite Grant Act of 1864. Yosemite offers a vast expanse of natural beauty. This national treasure encompasses the iconic Half Dome and El Capitan, numerous waterfalls, deep valleys, grand meadows, ancient sequoias, and a vast array of recreational opportunities. Park visitors have the opportunity to explore an extensive trail system, camp at 13 different sites, bike, bird watch, fish in a number of streams and rivers, horseback ride, rock climb, swim, kayak, and raft. Yosemite is also home to the largest intact subalpine meadow complex in the Sierra Nevada, 30 properties and districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and five National Historic Landmarks. Mr. Speaker, Yosemite National Park is undoubtedly one of the most extraordinary features of our national landscape. I hope that generations to come will be able to enjoy its many wonders.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking Congressman Westerman for organizing this Special Order tonight and for his indispensable work on the Natural Resources Committee and its Subcommittee on Federal Lands. Mr. Westerman is a professional forester, schooled at Yale University, which the founder of the U.S. Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot, did so much to shape. Mr. Westerman's H.R. 2647 represents the first step toward restoring the sound, well-established, scientifically validated, and time-tested methods that, for generations, produced healthy, thriving, and vibrant forests. These forest management practices prevented vegetation and wildlife from overgrowing the ability of the land to support them. Not only did this assure robust and healthy forests capable of resisting fire, disease, and pestilence, but it also supported the prosperous economy. Revenues from the sale of excess timber provided a steady stream of revenues to the Treasury which could, in turn, be used to further improve the public lands. About 45 years ago, we replaced these sound management practices with what can only be described as a policy of benign neglect. In 1970, Congress adopted the National Environmental Policy Act that opened a floodgate of ponderous and Byzantine laws, regulations, and lawsuits, with the explicit promise that they would ``save the environment.'' Well, after 45 years of these policies, I think we are entitled to ask: How is the environment doing? Well, according to every scrap of evidence submitted to our subcommittee by a broad cross-section of experts, the answer is that these laws have not only failed to improve the forest environment; they have catastrophically harmed that environment. Surplus timber harvested from our national forests as a result of these laws has dropped dramatically since the 1980s, while acreage destroyed by forest fire has increased concurrently and concomitantly. Wildlife habitats that were supposed to be preserved are now being incinerated. Precipitation that once flowed to riparian habitats now evaporates in overgrown canopies or is quickly claimed in the fierce competition of densely packed vegetation. We have lost vast tracts of our national forests to beetle infestations, as weakened trees can no longer resist their attacks. The U.S. Forest Service reports that in the Tahoe Basin in my district, there is now four times the vegetation density as normal, and trees that once had room to grow and thrive now fight for their lives against other trees trying to occupy the same ground. Revenues that our forest management agencies once produced and that facilitated our forest stewardship have all but dried up. This has devastated mountain communities that once thrived from the forest economy, while precious resources are diverted for lifeline programs like secure rural schools and PILT. Despite a growing population, visitation to our national forests has declined significantly. We can no longer manage lands to prevent fire or even salvage dead timber once fire has destroyed it. Appeals, lawsuits, and especially the threat of lawsuits have paralyzed and demoralized the Forest Service and created perverse incentives to do nothing to manage our lands. The steadily deteriorating situation is forcing managers to raid forest treatment and fire prevention funds to pay for the growing costs of wildfire suppression, creating a fiscal death spiral--the more we raid prevention funds, the more wildfires we have; the more wildfires we have, the more we have to raid our prevention funds. Ironically, our private forest lands are today conspicuously healthier than the public lands, precisely because the private lands are free from so many of the laws that are tying the hands of our public foresters. These laws may be making environmental law firms rich, but they are killing our national forests. H.R. 2647 is the first step toward restoring sound, rational, and scientific management of our national forests. It streamlines fire and disease prevention programs and assures that fire-killed timber can be quickly removed to create both the revenues and the room to restore fire-damaged lands. It protects forest managers from frivolous lawsuits. In my district, comprising the Sierra Nevada mountains in California, two major forest fires are now raging. The Butte fire in Amador County has already killed two people, left hundreds homeless, and destroyed 72,000 acres of forest land. The Rough fire in Fresno County has destroyed 141,000 acres, and they are still burning tonight. We have exhausted our firefighting budget, and, without relief, we will have to begin stripping funds intended for fire prevention. Mr. Westerman's bill would allow these catastrophic wildfires to be funded like every other natural disaster. Mr. Speaker, we have a very simple choice. We can continue the misguided environmental laws that, for 45 years, have become responsible for the destruction of hundreds of square miles of our national forests every year, or we can restore the sound forest management practices that will guarantee healthy and resilient forests for the next generation. This bill has already passed the House. It is now sitting in the Senate, and it is essential that the Senate act soon to put it on the President's desk.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 487 is a noncontroversial, one-page bill that would exempt lands held in fee by the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma from the limitations imposed by the Indian Nonintercourse Act. According to the tribe, these limitations may hinder economic development. Specifically, H.R. 487 would allow the tribe to lease, sell, convey, warrant, or transfer all or any portion of interest in any real property not held in trust for the tribe. The bill also states that the legislation does not authorize the tribe to lease, sell, convey, warrant, or otherwise transfer all or any portion of any interest in any real property that is held in trust. In accordance with the expressed wishes of the tribe's leadership, Congressman Markwayne Mullin, who represents the tribe in the House, sponsored H.R. 487. The Department of the Interior supports this bill, which passed the Natural Resources Committee by unanimous consent earlier this year. I commend my colleague from Oklahoma for his hard work, and I urge my colleagues to pass the bill. 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 Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), the author of this measure.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would urge adoption of the measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 959) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of the Medgar Evers House, located in Jackson, Mississippi, 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 materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 959 authorizes a special resource study to be conducted by the Department of the Interior on the home of the late civil rights activist Medgar Evers. This bill requires the Secretary to determine the national significance of the home and the feasibility of designating the site as a unit of the National Park Service. The National Park Service does not have any objections to this bill, and it was reported out of the Natural Resources Committee by unanimous consent. Once results of the study are available, Congress would have to act to create any new unit of the National Park system. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, Medgar Evers was a patriot and a civil rights leader who gave his life to realize the full promise of the American Declaration of Independence. His memory is vivid and revered by every American of goodwill who lived through those momentous years. It is for us now to preserve his memory for the many generations of Americans to follow who will have to look to history to know him. This bill is a step toward recognizing the enormous debt our Nation owes him and to ensure that future generations can draw inspiration from his leadership, his patriotism, his courage, and his sacrifice that he made in the cause of freedom. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1214 would amend the Small Tracts Act to allow for the sale of small, isolated, federally owned parcels outside of the main body of a national forest as well as parcels encumbered with certain special uses such as cemeteries. The management of these isolated and encumbered parcels takes considerable resources away from the core mission of the Forest Service. Proceeds from the sale of these parcels would be deposited into a Sisk Act fund and may be used for deferred maintenance, acquisition of lands for administrative sites or recreational access, or to reimburse the Forest Service for administrative costs in preparing the sales. The U.S. Forest Service has a challenging mission. Enabling it to develop a more manageable land base is simply good government, which is why this bill has such broad-based support. I also want to thank Chairman Conaway of the Agriculture Committee for his assistance in expediting this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC, June 5, 2015. Hon. K. Michael Conaway, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: On April 30, 2015, the Committee on Natural Resources ordered reported without amendment H.R. 1214, the National Forest Small Tracts Act Amendments Act of 2015, by unanimous consent. The bill was referred primarily to the Committee on Natural Resources, with an additional referral to the Committee on Agriculture. I ask that you allow the Committee on Agriculture to be discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future referrals. In addition, should a conference oh the bill be necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee on Agriculture represented on the conference committee. Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and any response in the bill report filed by the Committee on Natural Resources to memorialize our understanding. Thank you for your consideration of my request, and for your continued strong cooperation between our committees. Sincerely, Rob Bishop, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.