Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 230) to provide for the conveyance of certain property to the Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation located in Bethel, Alaska.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I would reciprocate those kind words to the gentlewoman from Michigan; thank you. Mr. Speaker, I ask for adoption of this measure. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 501) to make technical corrections to the Navajo water rights settlement in the State of New Mexico, 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.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1214) to amend the Small Tracts Act to expand the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or exchange small parcels of National Forest System land to enhance the management of the National Forest System, to resolve minor encroachments, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1289) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire approximately 44 acres of land in Martinez, California, 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 to include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, my district comprises the Sierra Nevada, and we are daily reminded of the foresight of pioneers like John Muir who worked to set aside these natural assets for, in the words of the original Yosemite Charter, ``the public's use, resort, and recreation for all time.'' Keeping their memory fresh is an important objective, and I urge the adoption of the legislation. 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. 1554) to require a land conveyance involving the Elkhorn Ranch and the White River National Forest in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1949 would transfer the responsibilities regarding the construction of the National Liberty Memorial that honors the slaves and freemen of African descent who fought during the American Revolution to the Secretary of Agriculture. The proposed site for the memorial is on Department of Agriculture land, so this change makes sense. Under current law, either the Secretary of the Interior or the General Services Administrator would otherwise be responsible. As a cosponsor of this bill, which passed out of committee by unanimous consent, I would urge my colleagues to vote favorably for its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1949) to provide for the consideration and submission of site and design proposals for the National Liberty Memorial approved for establishment in the District of Columbia, as amended.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 125th anniversary of Sequoia National Park, and the 75th anniversary of Kings Canyon National Park. Both of these parks are located in California's Fourth Congressional District, which I have the honor to represent. Having been established in 1890, Sequoia National Park is the nation's second oldest national park. It was created through the advocacy of nearby San Joaquin Valley residents, who wished to protect the magnificent Giant Sequoias for the enjoyment and inspiration of future generations. In 1926, the park expanded to include Mount Whitney and the High Sierra backcountry. Today, it encompasses 39 Giant Sequoia groves, accounting for 40 percent of all native Sequoia groves in the world. In one of these groves, the Giant Forest, grows The General Sherman Tree. The General Sherman Tree is considered the largest living tree on earth and estimated to be approximately 2,000 years old. Kings Canyon National Park was created in 1940 to include the glacially-formed Kings Canyon. It also serves to protect the headwaters of the Kings River for public recreation and enjoyment. The park features over 60 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail and the John Muir Trail, both of which pass through spectacular alpine scenery. Together, the parks host over 1.5 million visitors annually, and contribute $154 million to the local tourism economy. Visitors participate in a variety of outdoor recreation activities, including: hiking, camping, horseback riding, fishing, canoeing, and climbing. Mr. Speaker, on this notable occasion, I rise to recognize the splendor of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, which I hope will inspire all Americans to visit and recreate among its natural wonders.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 487) to allow the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to lease or transfer certain lands.

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep disappointment in the decision by the House leadership to back off from a direct vote on a resolution of disapproval of the Iran nuclear accord as provided under the Corker Act. Clearly, the President has not complied with the requirements of Corker to provide Congress with the full text of its agreement with Iran, most specifically, the side deals referenced in the agreement between Iran and the IAEA. H. Res. 411, which declares the administration out of compliance with the Corker Act, is well-founded, but there is no reason to cancel the vote on the resolution disapproving the agreement as specified in the Corker Act and as promised by the House leadership for the last 6 weeks. H. Res. 411 rightly disputes September 17 as the deadline for congressional action to stop this treaty from taking effect, and I support that resolution, but it cannot authoritatively settle this dispute. That leaves the deadline as an open question, and this House must not let that deadline pass without definite action as provided by Corker. I oppose the act because it guts the Treaty Clause of the Constitution that requires treaties to be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Despite the President's contention that this is an agreement and not a treaty, the fact that it explicitly modifies the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty makes it obvious that it requires Senate ratification. Unfortunately, the Congress overwhelmingly approved the Corker Act, establishing a very different framework with respect to this particular treaty. Instead of a two-thirds vote of the Senate to ratify it, Corker, in essence, requires two-thirds of both Houses to reject it through a resolution of disapproval, an almost impossible threshold. Under Corker, the resolution of disapproval is the specific legal act required to reject this treaty. This is what the leadership had promised the House would vote on this week, until yesterday. Now we are to vote on a legally meaningless bill to approve the treaty that is expected to be voted down. It is specifically designed to have no legal effect but merely to give Members political cover. Thus, the House will fail to take action on a resolution of disapproval called for under the Corker Act by the disputed September 17 deadline. On that deadline, the President will declare victory, implement the treaty, and the Congress will be left sputtering. The world will correctly interpret this dereliction as a capitulation by the House to this treaty. And years from now, maybe, possibly, the courts will intervene to declare the President's action illegal or maybe not. Mr. Speaker, the House is right to dispute the September 17 deadline because clearly the President did not comply with provisions of Corker and provide the full text of the side agreements to the Congress; but the House is dead wrong to refuse to take action on the resolution of disapproval prior to the disputed deadline to assure that the House has spoken clearly, unambiguously, and indisputably according to the provisions of the Corker Act that the Congress, itself, enacted in May. Once it has acted, the House can still dispute whether the President's submission meets the requirements of Corker, but it will not have this momentous question dangling unresolved and in dispute. The argument we hear for this course is that the Senate is unlikely to take up a resolution of disapproval; therefore, we should hold the President to the letter of Corker. Well, what the Senate does is up to the Senate; but for our part, the House has a moral obligation to act within the undisputed timeframe to legally reject this dangerous action by the President. There is little doubt that this treaty will trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The leaders of Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have already made that abundantly clear. There is little doubt it is unverifiable. There is no doubt it will release $150 billion of frozen assets to Iran with which it can finance its terrorist operations and continue its nuclear research. I fear the Iran nuclear agreement may be just as significant to the fate of the 21st century as the Munich Agreement was to the 20th century. The American people and the world deserve a clear, unambiguous, and indisputable act of the House to repudiate this act. What the House leadership is now pursuing falls far short of this moral imperative.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, in 48 hours, the House will vote on a resolution to stop the Iran nuclear treaty. Now, I know the President chooses not to call it a treaty, but it is a treaty in everything but name, with international ramifications as great as any treaty Congress has ever considered. Because treaties have a profound implication to the life of this Nation, the Constitution requires they be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. Yet, in this post-constitutional era of Obama's America, it now require two-thirds of both Houses to reject them. Every Republican in both Houses has taken a stand against this treaty. So rejection or ratification now rests solely on whether enough Democrats are willing to place country ahead of party on a matter of the gravest consequence to world peace. I don't think anyone can dispute the immediate effects of this treaty: $150 billion in frozen assets will be released to a regime whose leaders daily reiterate their intention to wage war on Israel and the United States. These funds will be available to finance Iran's military and terrorist activities and to fund its nuclear ambitions. Although the agreement purports to halt production of fissile material, it gives Iran the legal right to continue its research and development of advanced centrifuges, the only purpose of which is to produce nuclear weapons. It gives them legal access to traffic in conventional arms in just 5 years and ICBM technology in 8 years, something that Obama's own chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said should be done ``under no circumstances'' just a week before the treaty was announced. Does anyone deny that the nation most immediately imperiled by a nuclear Iran--our ally, Israel--is united in its opposition to this treaty? Israeli political parties are among the most fractured and disputatious in the world. Yet, they stand united on this issue. Does anyone deny that the Iranian regime is notorious for not honoring its treaty obligations? Indeed, Iran signed a nuclear nonproliferation treaty and has violated it ever since, which is why we are now debating this treaty. Verification therefore must be the central focus of any treaty with this regime. Yet, under its very terms, spot inspections can be delayed for weeks or even months if the regime objects. More recently, we have learned that, under secret side agreements the administration had no intention of sharing, inspections of the most important nuclear sites are to be conducted by the Iranians themselves. This provision alone guarantees that history will ridicule this treaty as the pinnacle of naivety. So I ask my Democratic colleagues, why? Why would anyone who values peace support this treaty? The answer I hear is that it reduces the chance of war in the next few years or, in Neville Chamberlain's words, it guarantees ``peace in our time.'' Does anyone really believe this? This treaty gives Israel the Hobson's choice of launching a preemptive strike or ramping up its own nuclear program. The Saudis and Egyptians have already made clear this agreement gives them no alternative other than to initiate their own nuclear programs. It catastrophically undermines the Iranian democratic opposition at just the time the regime was faltering from within. Ironically, Mr. Obama tacitly concedes the destabilizing effect of this treaty by following it up with pledges to vastly increase military aid to Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. If he really believed this treaty stabilizes the region, why would it need a new infusion of arms? I appeal to my Democratic colleagues to consider the ramifications of this vote. The constitutional concerns are huge. This sets a dangerous precedent that essentially rescinds the treaty clause of the Constitution, a precedent they might live to regret under Republican administrations. A far more immediate danger is the chain of events this treaty would set off in the Middle East and quickly spread throughout the world. This treaty bolsters the Iranian regime from within. It infuses it with $150 billion with which to finance its nuclear ambitions. It gives it the legal right and guaranteed timetable to pursue nuclear war and cannot be verified through inspections. Iran has made crystal clear its intent to destroy Israel and the United States, a threat reiterated yesterday in no uncertain terms by its Supreme Leader. Mr. Speaker, we are running out of time to avert a catastrophe.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the Tevis Cup Ride of the Western States Trail. The Western States Trail Foundation hosts the Ride with the aim of preserving the trail. Throughout its long history, the trail has been used by Native Americans, emigrants, gold and silver miners, and sportsmen alike. The Tevis Cup is the oldest modern-day endurance ride, covering one hundred miles in one day. Riders begin in Robie Park, east of Squaw Valley, and have twenty-four hours to make their way to the end of the rugged trail in Auburn, California. The 60th annual ride will take place on August 1, 2015. Thousands of horseback riders from around the world participate in the Tevis Cup. The event brings together a vast community of volunteers dedicated to keeping the Western States Trail open to the public. Volunteers spend innumerable hours and significant financial resources to make this equestrian endurance ride a success year after year. Mr. Speaker, the Western States Trail Foundation and the Tevis Cup Ride have made an important contribution to both the local economy and the preservation of this rugged Sierra trail. I thank the Western States Trail Foundation for hosting the Tevis Cup Ride, particularly on the event's 60th Anniversary, and I commend the Foundation for its continuing efforts to ensure the trail remains a monument to public access and enjoyment of our nation's abundant natural resources.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Keri Lee Smith of Roseville, CA, as she celebrates her 50th birthday today, July 29, 2015. A fourth generation Californian, Keri Lee is an active member in the community of Roseville. Keri graduated from CSU Chico in 1988, earning a BS in Business with a minor in Recreation Administration. She received her teaching credentials from CSU Chico in 1991. She later earned a Masters of Education from the University of LaVerne and received a G.A.T.E. certificate from UC Davis. Keri has been teaching for over a decade in the greater Roseville area, and currently teaches math and life sciences at Western Sierra Collegiate Academy in Rocklin and educates future teachers as a professor at Chapman University. Agriculture has long been a part of Keri Lee's life. She was born in Chico and raised on a family farm her great-grandfather began in 1918 in Clarks Valley, part of the California coastal range. Later, the farming operation moved to Butte City near the Sacramento River, where her siblings continue the enterprise today. When she's not teaching, Keri finds time to be an active member of the California Women in Agriculture. Keri Lee is a loving wife to her husband Scott and a dedicated mother to their three children: Emma, Garret, and Maddox. Keri spends much of her time shuttling the children between sports and scouts, cheering them on at ball fields, and shaping them into confident future leaders. Her role as a mother also includes service as the President of the Roseville High School Parents Club, a Girl Scout Troop Leader, and a member of the Parent-Teacher Council. In her limited spare time, Keri enjoys to read, bake, and travel. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Ms. Keri Lee Smith on this special day, and in wishing her a happy 50th birthday.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, Walt Whitman explained the story of mankind when he said: ``The powerful play goes on, and you will contribute a verse.'' I rise today to recognize the many verses contributed by an extraordinary lady, Kathy Arts. Kathy has managed my district office for nearly 7 years and is retiring to contribute still more verses through her family, her friends, colleagues, community, and church. Whether as a small-business owner for the past 28 years, a volunteer coordinator for local county fairs and community festivals or a charity fundraiser, Kathy is the paragon of a go-to person. Kathy's most conspicuous virtue is her genuine concern for helping others, and that has been a godsend to my office and to the people of the Fourth Congressional District of California. In this, she is irreplaceable. When I think of a meaningful life, I think of Kathy Arts and rise to thank her for her public service.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would simply remind my colleague that, in the 112th Congress, this bill went through one of the most exhaustive public processes of any bill heard by Congress. Its genesis was in two public hearings in the Central Valley in 2010 and 2011. It was vetted through not one, but two public hearings in Washington in which minority Democrats called twice as many witnesses as majority Republicans. On the House floor, every Democratic amendment was made in order and considered. In fact, over the past 5 years, we have held 18 hearings on various versions of this bill. We consulted 60 water agencies throughout northern and central California, including many in Democratic districts. The bill was taken up again in the 113th Congress and redebated. This time, extensive negotiations took place between House and Senate Members. The fact is there are few issues in this Congress that have been more thoroughly debated than those encompassed in this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, droughts are nature's fault, but water shortages are our fault. They are a deliberate choice we made nearly 40 years ago when we stopped building new dams. We haven't added a major reservoir in California since 1979, while the population of our State has nearly doubled. Even before the drought, leftist policies created severe water shortages in California's Central Valley, devastating the economy and creating the spectacle of food lines in one of the most fertile agricultural regions of our Nation. For 4 years, the House has passed comprehensive legislation to resolve this crisis before it became a crisis. For 4 years, Senate Democrats blocked it; but the public has now awakened, and the Senate has changed. The voices we hear in opposition are the same voices that have dominated Western water policy these past 40 years. We now know where that leads. This bill doesn't preempt California water law; it protects it by forbidding State officials from fulfilling their threats to violate it. It comes at the request of local water agencies that are sick and tired of having their water expropriated by ideological zealots. It is time to choose between two very different visions of water policy. One is the nihilistic vision of the environmental left; increasingly severe, government-induced shortages, forced rationing, astronomical water prices, and a permanently declining quality of life for our children who will be required to stretch and ration every drop of water in their parched homes. The other is a vision of abundance, a new era of clean, cheap, and plentiful water and hydroelectricity; great new reservoirs to store water in wet years to assure plenty in dry ones; a society whose children can enjoy the prosperity that abundant water provides, including fresh and affordable groceries from America's agricultural cornucopia. Mr. Chairman, we choose abundance.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I said earlier this is a time of choosing between two very different visions. The Democrats offer us a vision of scarcity and astronomical water prices. We have been trying it their way--it doesn't end well. Our bill serves a different vision of abundant water and hydroelectricity at affordable prices--and the prosperity and the quality of life that means for every American. Water is plentiful, but it is unevenly distributed over time. We build reservoirs to store water in wet years so that we have it in dry ones. We stopped building major reservoirs over 1 million acre-feet 40 years ago because of policies imposed on us by the very same voices that we now hear raised against this bill. The Sacramento River is bigger than the Colorado, yet we store 70 million acre-feet on the Colorado and only 10 million acre-feet on the Sacramento. We will not solve our water shortage until we build more dams. That is what our bill does. This amendment would scrap this vision of abundance for more of the same--not more water, only more conservation, more recycling, and more doing with less. Conservation is important in a drought, but conservation is the management of a shortage. Managing a shortage does not solve a shortage. Only abundance can do that. Mr. Chairman, when we confuse conservation with supply, as these voices from the left always do, in a real drought, we discover that we have already played that card and we no longer have it available to stretch supplies in an emergency. Mr. Chairman, new dams not only mean more abundant water for the West; they provide clean, cheap, and reliable hydroelectricity. They provide flood control to protect regions that would otherwise be inundated and uninhabitable. They assure year-round flows of water to riparian habitats that would otherwise be desiccated in drought and devastated by flood. All of these benefits would be sacrificed on the altar of the environmental left by this amendment. Supply or shortage, that is the question. This bill opens up a new era of supply. This amendment takes us further down the road of coping with shortage not as a temporary stopgap, but as a way of life. Well, we have had a taste of that way of life. We have watched our lawns turn brown. We have watched our water bills skyrocket. We have watched businesses shut down. We have watched thousands of farmworkers thrown out of work. We have seen food lines in the fertile agricultural region of the West. We have had enough. Mr. Chairman, we seek a new future where water and hydroelectricity are abundant and inexpensive, where jobs are plentiful, where grocery shelves are full, where water police are not knocking on the door because we have taken too long in the shower, and where our lawns and gardens are green again.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?