Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes one technical change to the bill by capitalizing an acronym in the table of contents and makes one clarifying change to title IX by ensuring that those who have already negotiated prepayments of their debt to the U.S. Treasury are not impacted by provisions in that title. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close when the gentleman is finished.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I don't know how adequately to express my alarm and outrage over the President's agreement with Iran. It is a breathtakingly dangerous act. Some have compared it to Neville Chamberlain's Munich accord with Nazi Germany, but that does not fully illustrate the danger. In this case, we are talking about a rogue state with all of Nazi Germany's genocidal intentions, but this one will be armed with nuclear weapons. In its preamble, the agreement asserts that Iran will comply with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty that it signed long ago. Well, wait a second. If it had obeyed this treaty, we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with now, would we? The fact is that Iran has a well-established and consistent record of routinely violating international law. Its intention to acquire nuclear weapons is obvious. The immediate effect of the President's action is to release hundreds of billions of dollars of direct and indirect resources to Iran with which its government can pursue its military and terrorist activities, activities that aren't even addressed in this agreement. It is sobering to consider that Iran's extensive terrorist operations, which reportedly now reach into South America, are about to get a huge infusion of cash. But lifting the sanctions does far more damage than merely releasing resources to this outlaw regime with which to kill Israelis and Americans, as its leader vowed to do just last week. The sanctions were having a major impact on destabilizing the regime according to all of the Iranian expatriates I have talked with. Relieving those sanctions undermines what had been a rapidly building uprise against the regime from within. Over the last several years, the Iranian opposition had grown dramatically for two reasons: there was a strong and growing perception among the Iranian people that the Iranian dictatorship was a pariah in the international community, and that the resulting international economic sanctions had created conditions that make the regime's overthrow imperative--that is, until Barack Obama blundered onto the scene. This agreement cannot be verified. We are now learning that the 24/7 access to inspections promised by the President does not exist. Under this agreement, the regime can stall any inspection for many weeks or even months. The President's promise that violations will result in a snapback of sanctions is also completely empty. Restoring sanctions would require the assent of China and Russia, something much less likely, given our rapidly deteriorating relations with them. And even if Iran scrupulously abided by every detail of the agreement, they can continue to run centrifuges for low-level enrichment, continue their research and development of advanced centrifuges, continue their heavy water research, and within 8 years acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles. That means, even under this agreement, within a decade, Iran will have a nuclear breakout capability and the launch vehicles necessary to deliver those weapons anywhere in the world with the solemn vow of its government to wipe Israel and the United States off the map. Indeed, just last week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned: ``Under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.'' Yet a week later, that is exactly what this agreement does. The President says there is no alternative. Well, this is utter nonsense. The sanctions were working. The domestic resistance to this Islamic-fascist dictatorship mustered over 100,000 Iranian expatriates at its annual meeting in Paris last month. This movement desperately needs the moral and material support of our Nation to bring down this regime from within. That is precisely what this administration has denied them. Last month, I fear the Congress became complicit in this agreement by adopting a completely extraconstitutional process for ratification that I believe was a sham. Instead of two-thirds vote of the Senate to approve treaties, it requires an almost impossible two-thirds vote of both Houses to reject it as an agreement. But at this moment in time, nothing is more important to the world than for two-thirds of this Congress to repudiate this dangerous falling. Despite all of the indignities, retreats, and self-inflicted wounds our country has endured these past 6\1/2\ years, the freedom-loving people of the world still look to us for leadership and support. We are still what Lincoln called the last best hope of mankind. It is imperative that Congress now rise to the occasion.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, the greatest danger facing our country is a national debt that now exceeds our entire economy. This year, we spent $230 billion just to pay interest on that debt. The CBO warns that, on our current trajectory, interest payments will exceed our entire defense budget just 8 years from now. Behold the chaos in Greece, and consider that our Nation is not far behind. Congress has labored mightily to enact a budget that saves us from this dismal future, but having set that course, we must stay that course. The underlying bill makes many worthy changes in law, but it evades the discipline the budget requires to save our country from the fate of Greece. Mr. Brat's amendment places this bill back within the boundaries of the budget without budget gimmickry and can be easily accommodated by cutting lower priority spending. The question before us is whether we will fund our priorities responsibly or follow Greece to ruin.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, excess timber comes out of the forest one way or another. It is either carried out or its burned out, but it comes out. Years ago, when we carried it out, we had healthy forests and a thriving economy. We managed our national forests according to well- established and time-tested forest management practices that prevented vegetation and wildlife from overgrowing the ability of the land to support it. Revenues from the sale of excess timber provided for prosperous local economies and a steady stream of revenues to the Treasury which could, in turn, be used to further improve the public lands. But 40 years ago, in the name of saving the environment, we consigned our national forests to a policy of benign neglect. And the results are all around us today, not only the impoverished mountain communities, but an utterly devastated environment. Our forests are now dangerously overgrown. Trees that once had room to grow and thrive now fight for their lives in competition with other trees from the same ground. In this distressed condition, they fall victim to pestilence, disease, and catastrophic wildfire. My goodness, we can't even salvage dead timber anymore. This legislation is the first step back towards sound, scientific management of our national forests. It streamlines fire and disease prevention programs. It expedites restoration of fire-damaged lands. It protects forest managers from frivolous lawsuits, and it does so without requiring new regulations, rules, planning, or mapping. Mr. Chairman, the management of our public lands is the responsibility of Congress. The bromides of the environmental left have proven disastrous to the health of our forests, the preservation of our wildlife, and the welfare of our mountain communities. This bill begins to reverse that damage and to usher in a new era of healthy and resilient forests and an economic renaissance for our mountain towns.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, Eric Hoffer once said that every great cause becomes a movement, which becomes a business, which becomes a racket. That is what has happened with environmental litigation. Through many hearings, we have discovered that most of the groups litigating collaborative projects sue just to raise money or to defeat necessary projects through delay. That is their right. No one begrudges them it. But that does not include frivolous litigation designed solely to run out the clock on salvage projects or to nullify by delay the painstaking work of collaborative groups which often, in good faith, spend endless hours and considerable resources in negotiating a plan that is fair to all. I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, with a long history of serving the American people and the U.S. national interest, we stand together today to call for a new approach in our country's policy toward Iran and the Iranian opposition. Ours is an independent initiative, motivated by our concerns for United States national security, as well as justice and opportunity for millions of Arab and Persian citizens whose futures are being shaped by current events, and the unending suffering of the Iranian people, who have been deprived of their most fundamental rights for over 35 years under the tyrannical regime ruling Iran. We are also concerned about the safety and security of the approximately 2,500 Iranian opposition members trapped in Camp Liberty in Iraq, whom our government, through its military, has pledged in writing to protect. Their safety while being processed for onward relocation by the United Nations remains a moral obligation for the United States, arising not only from our written guarantee but also from the valuable help and intelligence--including information about Iran's nuclear program--provided by these opposition members. Our country's failure to uphold its solemn promises to these defenseless men and women is inexcusable, and is a by-product of our government's misreading of the Iranian regime's intentions. We are united in our understanding of the nature of the regime in Iran, a subject about which many of our colleagues in Washington seem uncertain. While we share the goal of seeking an end to Iran's nuclear weapons activities through diplomacy if such an outcome can be negotiated, we believe it is a mistake for Iran's actions in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere to be overlooked, minimized, excused or even welcomed. We also believe it will better serve our country's interests to pay closer attention to the human rights and aspirations of the Iranian people. Today we call for an end to the misguided position of those in Washington who seek to isolate, exclude or otherwise ignore Iran's largest, most established and best organized political opposition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, led by Mrs. Maryam Rajavi. In recent years we have come to know Mrs. Rajavi and the NCRI, and we know the resistance far better than many in Washington who believe that the NCRI should be kept at arm's length for one reason or another. We call as well for immediate pressure by our government on the government of Iraq, which depends on United States military and financial aid, to end the systematic torment of the MEK members still in Iraq that has thus far resulted in 142 deaths (101 outright murdered, 15 victims of rocket attacks, and 26 denied access to proper medical treatment) and the ongoing denial of livable health, sanitary and nutrition conditions. This cessation of harassment should be followed immediately by their physical removal from Iraq to countries in which Iranian opposition members are already leading productive lives, including the United States. Mrs. Rajavi's steadfast message, to political and religious leaders around the world over a period of many years, is a 10-point plan for the future of Iran that would resolve Iran's most dangerous and destabilizing challenges. The plan would restore political legitimacy through universal suffrage, guarantee rights for all citizens and particularly women and minorities, end the cruel excesses of the judiciary and establish the rule of law, end the nightmare of fundamentalist Islamic dictatorship by once again separating church and state, protect property rights, promote equal opportunity and environmental protections, and--last but certainly not least--seek a non-nuclear Iran, free of weapons of mass destruction. The idea that Washington should continue in 2015 to disregard a worldwide group of Iranians promoting such a platform is indefensible. The United States should be maintaining a vibrant and constant dialogue with the National Council of Resistance of Iran. It is by now beyond dispute that the regime in Tehran is fomenting instability and conflict throughout the region, most notably in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq. Its campaign to undermine stability was launched because the regime sought to enhance its influence throughout the region and because it feared the emergence of more open political systems in nearby countries that could revive the democratic forces behind the Persian Spring of 2009. Iran shares responsibility for the rise of ISIS; this phenomenon was cynically facilitated by Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad and then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq to divert the focus from their own divisive sectarian actions, supported by Iran, about which we have repeatedly warned in previous years. Iran's regime has sustained a leader in Damascus guilty of major war crimes against his own people and in defiance of a Presidential ``red line,'' a UN-brokered transition process and the united stance of Arab League governments insisting on his departure. It has supplied military-grade weapons to Hizballah, a Lebanese non-state actor with the blood of American diplomats and Marines on its hands. It has supported and led sectarian militias in Iraq assaulting Sunni villages and towns. It has provided long-range rockets to Hamas in Gaza to be aimed at population centers in Israel, destabilizing efforts at a negotiated two-state solution. And it has supplied arms, explosives, and funds to an insurgent group in Yemen that has driven out foreign Embassies, including our own, seized power and provoked a new regional military conflict. In all of these actions, while the U.S. Administration has exercised restraint in the apparent hope of moderating Iran's behavior, Iran's leaders have shown nothing but contempt for longstanding American, European, and Arab interests throughout the Middle East. They have also clearly demonstrated that money is no object in their efforts to quell popular movements for more open and democratic governance, both domestically and in neighboring Arab countries. Inside Iran, while many Americans have for years detected signs of moderation, the regime has become, if anything, more repressive since Hassan Rouhani became President in 2013. Imprisonment and executions have increased. Information, including access to the internet, radio, and television, as well as social media, are now substantially controlled by the Revolutionary Guards. The 2013 elections were carefully managed by the regime to avoid a repeat of the open rebellion in the streets in 2009, after which many were executed and more have been imprisoned. The editors of The Washington Post, writing about its reporter, whom they say is ``entirely innocent of the charges'' for which he has been imprisoned in Iran since July of 2014, write that this ``blatant abuse of the human rights of an American journalist'' raises ``disturbing questions about a regime that Mr. Obama is counting on to implement a complex and multifaceted accord limiting its nuclear activities.'' The Post editors ask, ``If [Foreign Minister] Zarif and President Hassan Rouhani either countenance or cannot stop such blatantly provocative behavior by the Iranian intelligence services and judiciary, how can they be expected to overcome the entrenched resistance to limiting Iran's uranium enrichment?'' We share these concerns. We also recognize that the fundamentalist regime in Tehran, in violating so many norms of political governance and international behavior since the 1979 revolution, survives not through the ballot box but only by absolute suppression and its false claim to religious authority--a formula which has now been repeated by Sunni extremists attempting to create an Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. No one should misunderstand why the National Council of Resistance of Iran is the single entity feared most by the rulers in Tehran: it is because the MEK and NCRI directly challenge the religious claim of authority that the mullahs have used to exercise and maintain political power. The ayatollahs' thirty-five-year war against the MEK and the NCRI; the repeated deadly assaults against the residents of Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty; their intelligence services' covert influence and propaganda campaigns against the Resistance in Western countries; their constant diplomatic requests over the past two decades for the U.S., France, and other governments to place the MEK on their lists of terrorist organizations; their confiscation of satellite dishes and jamming of Iran National TV signals reaching the population inside Iran; their arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, and execution of anyone supporting the Resistance--all these aspects of the regime's obsessive focus on the Resistance are due to one fact. This is not about terrorism, not about culture, not about the Iran- Iraq War or the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War. All the propaganda generated by the regime to defame and criminalize the Resistance has now been exposed, and the NCRI has challenged every terrorist listing and won. No, this obsession of the mullahs with the Resistance is about Islam, and the desire of millions of Iranians to exercise their faith while living in a modern society with higher education, and economic and political empowerment for women and men alike. The concept of Velayat e-faqih in the new regime's constitution--forcefully imposed by Ayatollah Khomeini after the fall of the Shah to place total religious and political power in the hands of one man--has been a disaster for the Iranian people, for Iran, and for the world. You will not hear any debate in Washington that ISIS must be stopped; it is high time Americans also recognized that if ISIS succeeds, what the world will get is a Sunni version of Khomeini's Iran. We recommend the following four initiatives to our government and to presidential candidates and prospective candidates in both parties, aimed at de-escalating conflict throughout the Middle East, in part by recognizing these realities, standing for American principles and basic international norms, and opposing the destructive role of Iran in the region. First, on the nuclear issue, we support a peaceful solution if it can be achieved through diplomacy. However, we strongly believe that such a solution cannot be achieved by making concessions to Iran but rather by making clear that Iran will be denied any potential opportunity to obtain a nuclear bomb. Iran under the ayatollahs has consistently shown that it cannot be trusted. Verification, not blind trust in the Iranian government to fulfill conditions of the agreement, must be an unconditional reality. Furthermore, western negotiators must clarify what is meant by Possible Military Dimension (PMD) activities of Iran before a comprehensive deal can be signed. Second, Iran's destructive role throughout the region must be curbed and deterred. Far from being part of the solution, Iran is a major part of the problem. There should be no direct or indirect cooperation with Iran under the pretext of fighting ISIS. Iran has been a major engine of the spread of Islamic extremism and fundamentalism. It is globally recognized to be the primary state sponsor of terrorism. The success of a long-term stabilization strategy in the region hinges on ending Iran's cynical and destructive meddling in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and other countries. Third, we should be more vigilant and vocal about the serious human rights abuses by the regime that continue inside Iran. Our policy on Iran's internal and external transgressions against universal international norms can no longer be held hostage to the nuclear issue. Indeed, our failure to stand for basic principles and rights only encourages the regime to violate them further with impunity. Nuclear negotiations, which many have taken as an indication of moderation within the theocratic regime, must not inadvertently provide it an undeserved veneer of legitimacy and abet its suppression of the Iranian people. During Mr. Rouhani's tenure as President, the human rights situation in Iran has measurably deteriorated, while illicit arms trafficking and support for terrorist non-state actors has continued unabated. A successful policy toward Iran and the Middle East cannot be based on denial of these realities. Ultimately, the core of our approach is to side with 80 million Iranian people and their desire, along with people everywhere, for freedom and popular sovereignty based on democratic principles. Engaging with the democratic opposition has been the missing piece of U.S. policy for many years under both Republican and Democratic leadership. Thus, as our fourth initiative, we call on our government to break the stalemate and engage in respectful dialogue with the Iranian opposition, consistent with our country's policy of dialogue with all political groups. Whatever the outcome of nuclear negotiations and in virtually any possible scenario, the wishes of the Iranian people and their desire for change must be taken into consideration. The fact is that Washington officials, experts, and expatriates cannot possibly know what Iranians living under a violently repressive dictatorship truly believe about their circumstances or whom they would support in an open political process. We disrespect a great people by assuming that a democratic and non-nuclear Iran is impossible. It is not impossible; to the contrary, it is the only way to a future of regional stability. Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, as a Muslim woman advocating a tolerant and democratic interpretation of Islam enabling Muslims to be accepted and respected by all cultures and faiths, represents the very opposite of the misogynous Iranian regime's dictatorial nature and that of all Islamic fundamentalists and extremists. We need to align our policies with our principles, and begin listening to the voices of brave Iranians, many of whom have waited more than three decades, as their loved ones endured torture and death in the mullahs' prisons, still believing in the promise of America. All of us here today stand with them in solidarity with their deepest aspirations for a respectable, just, and democratic Iranian government worthy of its people. Hon. J. Kenneth Blackwell--Former U.S. Ambassador, UN Human Rights Commission Hon. Lincoln P. Bloomfield, Jr.--Former Special Envoy and Asst. Secretary of State Hon. John Bolton--Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Col., U.S. Army (Ret.) Thomas V. Cantwell--Former U.S. Military Commander for Camp Ashraf Hon. Marc Ginsberg--Former U.S. Ambassador to Morocco Hon. Rudy Giuliani--Former Mayor of New York City, Presidential Candidate Hon. Porter Goss--Former Director of CIA, Former Chairman of House Intel Committee Hon. Newt Gingrich--Former Speaker of the House Brig. Gen., U.S. Army (Ret.) David D. Phillips--Former U.S. Military Commander for Camp Ashraf Hon. Mitchell B. Reiss--Former Ambassador, Former Special Envoy to the Northern Ireland Peace Process Hon. Bill Richardson--Former NM Governor, Secretary of Energy, UN Ambassador, Presidential Candidate Hon. Glenn Carle--Former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Transnational Threats, National Intelligence Council Gen., U.S. Army George Casey--Former Chief of Staff and Commander of Multi-National Forces--Iraq Hon. Linda Chavez--Former Assistant to the President for Public Liaison, Chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity Gen., U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.) James Conway--Former Commandant Hon. Howard Dean--Former Governor of Vermont, DNC Chairman, Presidential Candidate Dr. Alan Dershowitz--Professor of Law, Harvard Law School Lt. Gen., U.S. Air Force (Ret.) David Deptula--Former Deputy Chief of Staff for Intel, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Hon. Paula J. Dobriansky--Former Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Hon. Louis J. Freeh--Former FBI Director Gen., U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.) James L. Jones--Former Commandant, NATO Commander, National Security Advisor to the President Hon. Robert Joseph--Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Hon. Patrick Kennedy--Former Congressman from Rhode Island Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman--Former Senator from Connecticut Col., U.S. Army (Ret.) Wesley M. Martin--Former U.S. Military Commander for Camp Ashraf, Senior Antiterrorism Officer--Iraq Lt. Col., U.S. Army (Ret.) Leo McCloskey--Former U.S. Military Commander for Camp Ashraf Hon. R. Bruce McColm--President, Institute for Democratic Strategies Col., U.S. Army (Ret.) Gary Morsch--Former Senior Medical Officer, Camp Ashraf Hon. Michael B. Mukasey--Former U.S. Attorney General Hon. Tom Ridge--Former Governor of Pennsylvania, Secretary Homeland Security Hon. John Sano--Former Deputy Director, CIA National Clandestine Service Gen., U.S. Army (Ret.) Hugh Shelton--Former Chairman of U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Hon. Eugene R. Sullivan--Retired Federal Judge, Lt. Col., U.S. Army (Ret.) Hon. Raymond Tanter--Former Personal Representative of Secretary of Defense to Arms Control Negotiations Hon. Robert Torricelli--Former Senator from New Jersey Hon. Frances Townsend--Former Homeland Security Advisor to the President Gen., U.S. Air Force (Ret.) Charles (Chuck) Wald--Former Deputy Commander U.S. European Command

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much for yielding and for his good work. Mr. Speaker, trade means prosperity. In any trade, both sides go away with something of greater value to themselves, or the trade wouldn't take place. More markets for American products means more jobs and higher wages for American workers. More products entering our economy means more consumer choices and lower prices. Trade agreements make trade possible, but the authority to effectively negotiate trade agreements lapsed years ago, handicapping America ever since. This is not some new power; it just restores the same negotiating process that has served us well since the 1930s. A lot of people confuse the TPA with the TPP. That is a trade agreement that hasn't even been finalized. If it is finalized, this bill assures that it has to meet 150 congressionally mandated conditions and be available for every American to read for at least 60 days before Congress votes to approve or reject it. TPA tells world markets America is back.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I don't support the war on coal that is waged by some of my friends on the left, but I do support the war on waste, and I support this amendment based upon that fiscal imperative. Just a few weeks ago, so-called defense hawks demanded spending well in excess of budget caps because, they said, our defense spending had been stretched to the breaking point. In light of those warnings, I find it inexcusable that these scarce defense dollars would be so recklessly squandered to continue to fund a corrupt earmark from a disgraced and deceased Pennsylvania Congressman, an earmark that dates back more than 40 years. That earmark, as my friend has just said, requires that one--and only one--American Air Force base must purchase 9,000 tons of Pennsylvania anthracite coal a year at the grossly inflated price that is estimated to be about $20 million. That is about 80 percent more expensive than commonly used coal, and that doesn't include the cost of transporting this overpriced coal across the Atlantic Ocean and halfway across the European continent--a cost that is absorbed elsewhere in the Air Force budget. The excuse is that we would otherwise be dependent on Putin, but that doesn't hold water. No other U.S. military base in all of Europe is required to buy this coal, only Kaiserslautern. 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 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, in the next 10 years, just paying the interest on the national debt will greatly exceed our entire Defense budget. That makes rooting out waste like this a national defense imperative.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk replacing amendment No. 3 printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment forbids scarce defense dollars from being allocated to fund three executive orders and several other provisions of law that require our military to squander billions of dollars in so-called green energy. The House adopted this amendment by a voice vote last year. I would again remind the House that, just a few weeks ago, the so- called defense hawks warned that our defense budget has been strangled by sequestration, that every dollar wasted long ago had been wrung out of the Pentagon budget, and that our national security was directly imperiled as a result. That argument carried the day, even though it will add billions of dollars to the national debt; yet, although we were told we didn't have enough money to adequately pay and supply troops in the field, it seems that we do have plenty of defense money to indulge the ``green energy'' mandates that are imposed on our Armed Forces. What truly troubles me is that this was all aired during debate on the DOD Appropriations bill last year. The limiting amendments were adopted by voice vote; yet we see the same waste being allowed in this year's bill. Let me refresh memories about the green energy mandates. 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 cost just $2.50 per gallon. These mandates forced the Air Force to pay $59 per gallon for 11,000 gallons of biofuel in 2012. That is 10 times more than regular jet fuel costs. It is not just biofuels. Last year, 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 at various facilities. At Naval Station Norfolk, for example, the Navy spent $21 million to install a 10-acre solar array which will supply a grand total of 2 percent of the base electricity. According to the inspector general's office, this project will save enough money to pay for itself in just 447 years. It is too bad solar panels only last about 25 years. We don't know exactly how much 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.'' Outside estimates are as much as $7 billion for the Department of Defense last year, a figure that is expected to grow in the future. We are told this program is necessary for flexibility. Really? Shouldn't ``flexibility'' free us to get cheaper and more plentiful fuels, not 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. That, I fear, is the real reason for this wasteful spending, to sacrifice our military budget on the altar of climate change. This is part of an ideological crusade imposed on our military that will pointlessly consume billions of defense dollars mainly to keep money flowing to politically well-connected ``green energy'' companies that can't get anyone else to buy their products. There is a reason that Admiral Mullen warned us that, in his professional military judgment, the greatest threat to our national security is our national debt. We just increased that debt because of assurances that we had stretched the defense budget to the breaking point. As long as this program continues to consume billions of our defense dollars, that claim cannot be taken seriously. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely right. The military is the largest purchaser of energy in our economy. That is exactly the point. They should not be forced to purchase energy at vastly inflated prices to soothe the ideological itch of the environmental left. No one in his right mind would pull into a gas station to pay $26.60 per gallon for fuel when the gas station next door is selling it for $2.50. That is exactly what these executive orders are requiring our military to do. It is squandering billions of our dollars and making a mockery of any claim that we are stretching our defense dollars to the utmost. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Chabad Jewish Community Center of Placer County on the momentous occasion of completing its Community Torah. Led by Rabbi Yossi Korik, Chabad Jewish Community Center opened in 2005 to educate and support the local Jewish community and inspire people from all walks of life. As part of this effort, the Chabad of Placer County commissioned a professional scribe in Israel to write a Torah scroll in the traditional method, which dates back thousands of years. The Torah contains the Five Books of Moses and is the most precious article in Jewish life. Its guidance provides a strong foundation for morals in today's global society. In October of 2014, members of the Jewish community gathered with rabbis and public leaders in Placer County to witness the first letters of the Torah being inscribed. This weekend, many months after the project's inception, the same community will once again gather--this time to celebrate the scroll's completion. This tremendous accomplishment will be celebrated on Sunday, June 14, 2015, with a festive parade. The Torah will travel down Douglas Boulevard under a Chuppah, led by a local marching band. Mr. Speaker, George Washington stated in his Farewell Address: ``of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.'' We are fortunate to have the Chabad Jewish Community Center as a pillar of religious and moral teachings in the Fourth Congressional District of California, and I am honored to share in this occasion. I thank members of Chabad for their continued positive impact on the Placer County community, and I am proud to stand with them in celebration.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

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

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, this is the kindest cut of all. It is a temporary program that was established 37 years ago and has become a poster child for wasteful Federal spending, and I believe the authorization ran out years ago. Our national debt has doubled in 8 years. American taxpayers pay $230 billion a year just in interest costs on that debt. That means if you are an average family paying average taxes, $2,000 of those taxes did nothing more than rent the money that we have already spent. Continuing to pay for this obsolete and wasteful program with money we don't have is obscene and makes a mockery of any claim that we have cut spending to the bone, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, this amendment eliminates the $155 million of discretionary spending that is wasted on one of the least essential programs in the entire United States Government, the so- called Essential Air Service. That is the program that subsidizes empty and near-empty planes to fly from small airports to regional hubs just a few hours or less away by car. This was supposed to be a temporary program to allow local communities and airports to readjust to airline deregulation in 1978. Not only is it still going on today, but it has doubled in cost in the last 4 years, from $130 million in 2011 to roughly $260 million in 2015, and $155 million of that is in our control. This amendment zeros it out and puts it toward deficit reduction. Now, we are often told: Well, don't worry. We have enacted all of these reforms. We have caps on subsidies. All those caps, $200 per ticket, are only for flights under 210 miles. It continues unlimited subsidies over that distance. Actual subsidies per passenger can be as high as $980 per ticket, paid by hard-working taxpayers. Year after year, we are promised reform; and year after year, the cost goes up and up. By the way, Essential Air Service flights are flown out of Merced and Visalia airports, serving my district in the Sierra. Trust me, a tiny number of people actually use it. The alternative is hardly catastrophic; it is typically an extra hour's drive to a regional airport. I guarantee you that everybody who hears about this waste of their money is outraged by it. It is true there are a few tiny communities in Alaska, like Kake's 700 citizens, that have no highway connections to hub airports, but they have plenty of alternatives. In the case of Kake, they enjoy year- round ferry service to Juneau. In addition, Alaska is well served by a thriving general aviation market and the ubiquitous bush pilot. Rural life has great advantages. It also has some disadvantages, but it is not the job of hard-working taxpayers who choose to live elsewhere to level out the differences. Now, apologists for this wasteful spending tell us it is an important economic driver for these small airports and airlines, and I am sure that is so. Whenever you give away money, the folks you are giving it to are always better off, but the folks you are taking it from are always worse off to exactly the same extent. Indeed, it's economic drivers like this that have driven Europe's economy right off a cliff. Two years ago, one Member rushed to the microphone to suggest that this was essential for emergency medical evacuations. It has nothing to do with that. This program subsidizes regularly scheduled commercial service that practically nobody uses. If it actually had a passenger base, it wouldn't need, in effect, to hand out $100 bills to the few passengers who use it. An airline so reckless with its funds would quickly bankrupt itself. Well, the same principle holds true of governments. The Washington Post is not known as a bastion of fiscal conservatism, but I cannot improve upon an editorial a few years ago when it said, ``Ideally, EAS would be zeroed out, and the $200 million we waste on it devoted to a truly national purpose: perhaps deficit reduction, military readiness, or the social safety net.'' The Washington Post goes on to write, ``Alas, if Congress and the White House were capable of making such choices, we probably never would have had sequestration in the first place.'' Madam Chair, there are many tough calls in setting fiscal priorities, but this isn't one of them. If the House of Representatives--where all appropriations begin, where the Republican majority pledged to stop wasting money--can't even agree to cut this useless program off from the trough, how does it expect to be taken seriously on the much tougher choices that lie ahead? I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that I offer with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the arguments we are hearing from Mr. Fleming are the arguments that ought to be heard in the States. I would remind him this measure does not affect marijuana laws involving any conceivable Federal jurisdiction. It does not affect Federal districts or territories. It does not affect Federal jurisdiction over interstate commerce, including the Federal Government's responsibility to interdict transport among States. It does not affect the Federal jurisdiction over Federal land. It does not affect Federal jurisdiction over the importation of marijuana from abroad. It only affects jurisdiction that is strictly and solely the rightful province of the States as pertains to their affairs strictly and solely within their own borders. At some point, Mr. Chairman, we must ask ourselves: Do we believe in the 10th Amendment or do we not? Do we believe in federalism or do we not? Do we believe in the architecture of our Constitution or do we not? Do we believe in freedom or do we not? I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), the cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment enacts a CBO recommendation to eliminate the trade promotion activities of the International Trade Administration to save almost $312 million. What does the ITA do exactly? Well, it has some legitimate functions enforcing trade agreements and treaties. This amendment leaves these functions untouched. But the ITA also does trade promotion activities. To quote from its own material, it ``provides counseling to American companies in order to develop the most profitable and sustainable plans for pricing, export, and the full range of public and private trade promotion assistance. . .as well as market intelligence, and industry and market specific research.'' Well, this is all well and good, but isn't that what businesses and trade associations are supposed to do and used to do with their own money? Why should taxpayers pay for the profits of private companies? If a specific business or industry is the sole beneficiary of these services, shouldn't it be the sole financier of them, either individually or collectively through trade associations? True, this program has been around for generations, but Franklin Roosevelt, who was hardly a champion of smaller government, had the right idea when he slashed its budget in 1932 and closed 31 of its offices. The problem is that reform didn't take. ITA now has over 250 offices and several thousand personnel around the world. The ITA's authorization lapsed in 1996--19 years ago. It has not been reviewed or authorized by Congress since then, but we still keep shoveling money out the door. Although it hasn't been reviewed by Congress in all of these years, it has been thoroughly weighed by the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the President's fiscal commission, and they have all found it sadly wanting. The Simpson-Bowles report summed it up nicely when they said: ``Services provided by ITA's U.S. Commercial Services and other divisions directly providing assistance to U.S. companies should be financed by beneficiaries of this assistance. While the agency charges fees for those services, its fees do not cover the cost of all of its activities. Additionally, it is argued that the benefits of trade promotion activities are passed on to foreigners in the form of decreased export costs.'' Simpson-Bowles then goes on to say: ``According to a study by the Office of Management and Budget, businesses can receive similar services from State, local, and private sector entities.'' This CBO option to eliminate ITA's promotion activities saves $312 million in 2016 and $3.5 billion through 2024. Mr. Chairman, if the CBO, the OMB, and the President's fiscal commission all agree this is wasteful and Congress hasn't bothered to reauthorize it since it expired 19 years ago, why do we continue to spend money that we don't have duplicating services the beneficiaries of those services either don't need or are perfectly capable of funding on their own? And if the companies that we are told directly benefit from these so- called ``essential'' services aren't willing to fund them, maybe that is just nature's way of telling us we shouldn't be fleecing our constituents' earnings to pay for them either. And why would we tap American taxpayers to subsidize the export activities of foreigners, as Simpson-Bowles notes? The rules of the House were specifically written to prevent this type of unauthorized expenditure, and they provide for a point of order to be raised if it is included in an appropriations bill. That is exactly what we have here. But alas, that rule is routinely waived when these measures are brought to the floor, making this amendment necessary. This is a prime example of corporate welfare, and we ought to be done with it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk involving page 3, line 10.