Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I was recently asked, What one issue keeps you up at night? I answered in an instant, Our government's debt: a debt that has doubled in just 8 years, a debt that now exceeds the size of our entire annual economy, a debt that is generating interest costs that are now eating us alive, roughly a quarter-trillion dollars a year just to rent the money that we have already spent. The Congressional Budget Office warns us, in 10 years, interest costs will exceed our entire defense spending if we continue down the road we are on. Admiral Mullen wasn't just blowing smoke when he said that, in his professional military judgment, the greatest threat to our national security was our national debt, because before you can provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare, you have to be able to pay for it, and the ability of our country to do so is coming into grave doubt. For 4 years, this House had passed budgets that put our Nation back on the path to fiscal solvency and began paying down this enormous debt that is sapping our prosperity and threatening our futures. For 4 years, the Senate simply refused to act and, as the gentleman from Georgia said, we just kicked the can down the road. Well, last November's election changed that. Now the Senate has also passed a budget that balances in 10 years. Now, for the first time in many years, we have the fleeting opportunity to invoke a conference process and put this Nation back on the road to solvency. Time is not our friend, and we don't have much of it left. The conference committee must have full latitude to act on a budget that both Houses can agree to, and the Democratic motion would hamstring that conference. My friend from Maryland, on behalf of the House Democrats, says this budget isn't right for America. Well, America needs to know that the Democratic budget never balances. It would continue our country down the road of debt and doubt and despair that we have been on during these long, cold years. The gentleman from Maryland criticizes premium support to save Medicare. Well, Americans need to know that the Medicare trustees themselves are screaming this warning at us, that, without reform, Medicare will bankrupt within 15 years. That means if you are 50 years or younger, it won't be there for you. When the Democrats say don't reform Medicare, what they mean is they are quite all right with that system collapsing on an entire generation of Americans. Mr. Speaker, all that stands between this Nation and the road to solvency and recovery is the conference process that can produce a plan to balance the budget, and all that stands against that, an unfettered conference process, is this motion. As I said, we don't have much time left.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. With my remaining time, let me suggest that, with the time our country has left, we do something worthy of our time here, that we balance our budget, redeem our debt, and save our country.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, even though I disagree heartily with the budgets advanced by the Progressive Caucus, they do an invaluable service to the budget debate by bringing into sharp relief two very different visions of governance advanced by the two parties. The Progressive budget is sincere and bold. Unfortunately, it is also wrong. It would hike taxes by $7 trillion over the next 10 years relative to the Republican budget, hike spending by $9.3 trillion, and run up $2.8 trillion more in debt than the Republican budget over 10 years. Now, let's begin with a reality check here. Divide $1 trillion into the number of families in this country. Every trillion dollars we throw around here is roughly $8,000 taken from an average family's earnings. Some of that they see as direct taxes; some of that they see as increased prices or depressed wages as businesses pass along their costs to consumers and employees; but ultimately it is paid by working Americans because that is where the bulk of our economy rests. So $3.8 trillion in increased taxes means roughly $30,000 taken from the earnings of an average family over the next 10 years; $2.8 trillion in increased debt means another $22,000 of debt added to that family's obligations that they will have to pay in future taxes. We are told, well, don't worry, rich people will pay all those taxes. The problem is, there aren't enough rich people in the country to begin to make more than a dent in these numbers. It turns out, many of the so-called rich people aren't rich, and they aren't even people. They are struggling small businesses filing under subchapter S. And remember this dirty little secret of finance: businesses do not pay business taxes. The only three possible ways a business tax can be paid is by consumers through higher prices, by employees through lower wages, and by investors through lower earnings. That is your 401(k) or your pension plan that we are talking about. We are told, well, don't worry. We are using that money to create wealth and jobs. Well, the problem is government doesn't create wealth because government cannot inject a dollar into the economy until it has first taken that same dollar out of the economy. True, we see the job that government creates when it puts the dollar back in. What we don't see as clearly is the job that is lost when government first takes that dollar out of the economy. We see those lost jobs in the lowest labor participation rate in nearly 40 years and in declining median incomes for working Americans. Here is what government can do--and what the Progressive Democratic budget proposes. It can transfer jobs from the private sector to the public sector by taxing one and expanding the other. It can transfer jobs from one sector of the private market to the other by taxing one and subsidizing the other. In fact, that is precisely the difference between Apple Computer and Solyndra. It is the difference between FedEx and the post office. It is the difference between the Reagan recovery and the Obama recovery. In fact, it has been estimated that if the Obama recovery had mirrored the Reagan recovery, millions more Americans would be working today, and family incomes would be thousands of dollars higher than they are today. But, of course, Reagan diagnosed the problem very differently than this administration. You remember his famous words: In this great economic crisis, government is not the solution to our problems-- government is the problem. He dramatically reduced the tax burden from 70 percent down to 28 percent. He reduced spending by 2 percent of GDP. He rolled back many of the regulatory burdens imposed on our economy. And the result was one of the most dramatic and prolonged economic expansions in our Nation's history. And it wasn't just Reagan. We forget that after the 1994 congressional election, Bill Clinton realized his policies weren't working. He came here to this floor in his State of the Union Address and proclaimed the era of Big Government is over. And he made good on that promise. He reached across the aisle to work with the Republican Congress and together they accomplished some amazing things. They reduced Federal spending by 4 percent of GDP. They approved what amounted to the biggest capital gains tax cut in American history. They dramatically reduced entitlement spending by--in Clinton's words-- ``ending welfare as we know it.'' The result was the only four budget surpluses in the last half century and another period of prolonged economic expansion. And the percentage of children living in poverty dropped dramatically. The budget reported by the House Budget Committee employs these principles that worked when Reagan and Clinton used them and worked when John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman and Warren Harding used them. The Republican House budget gradually reduces spending as a percentage of GDP. It calls for a lower, flatter tax rate. It puts our Nation back on a course to a balanced budget. It saves Medicare from bankrupting and collapsing on an entire generation of Americans. It takes us off the path of debt and doubt and despair that this administration has dogmatically followed and restores us to policies that have repeatedly brought prosperity to our Nation. Government cannot create jobs, but it can create conditions where jobs multiply and prosper, or where they stagnate and disappear. That it can do very well. And we have very consistent experience with the policies that create these conditions. Increase the burdens on the economy and the economy contracts. Lighten the burdens on the economy and it grows and prospers. That is what is out of control with this administration. No nation has ever taxed and spent its way to prosperity, but many nations have taxed and spent their way to economic ruin and bankruptcy. We know what works. We know what doesn't work. The House Budget Committee's Balanced Budget for a Stronger America follows principles that have time and again consistently and rapidly produced economic expansion and prosperity. The Obama budget, the House Democrats' budget, and the Progressive budget before us now double down on failed policies that have bankrupted nations throughout recorded history. That is the choice before us today, and we are running out of time to make it. Let's choose wisely. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Member from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, my friend forgets the 8.4 million jobs that will be destroyed in the productive sector as government transfers those 8.4 million, through taxes, to the public sector. I think the reason these times are so impassioned is because we have arrived at a moment when two very different visions of society are competing for our Nation's future, and they are very much reflected in the budgets put forward by the two parties in this House. America's prosperity and greatness spring from uniquely American principles of individual freedom, personal responsibility, and constitutionally limited government. America's Founders created a voluntary society where people are free to make their own decisions, enjoy the fruit of their own labors, take responsibility for their own decisions, and lead their own lives with a minimum of government interference and intrusion. When someone needs our help, we freely give that help, but we ask in return that they make the effort to support themselves to the extent they can. Our government views no one person or group as more or less worthy than any other. We are Americans. We will be judged on our own merits, and we will make our own choices, including what kind of car we will drive or how we will raise our children or what kind of lightbulbs we prefer or what we will have for dinner. Today, a very different vision competes with our future, that of a compulsory society, where our individual rights are subordinated to the mandates of government bureaucrats, where innocent taxpayers are forced to bail out the bad decisions of others, and where consumers are compelled to purchase products or underwrite the losses of politically favored companies. Under this vision, the purpose of government is not to protect individual freedom, but it is to improve society however those in power decide that it should be improved, to take from those it declares are undeserving to give to those that it declares are deserving--or, to put it more succinctly, to take from each according to his abilities and to give to each according to his needs. That is what this is all about. Not more than 100 steps from where we debate right now, Thomas Jefferson reviewed the bountiful resources of the Nation and asked: With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens, a wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread that it has earned. This is the sum of good government. This is A Balanced Budget for a Stronger America put forward by the House Budget Committee, and let us be clear, the various Democratic plans, including the one before us now, fundamentally reject these American principles and replace them with values that are alien and antithetical to those that built our Nation. This is the question that our generation must decide in all of its forms, including the question put to us today by this substitute amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, we need to discuss the budget under the ominously growing shadow of unprecedented debt that has literally doubled in the last 8 years. With crushing debt comes ruinous interest costs that the CBO warns will exceed our entire military budget within the decade on our current trajectory. The budget produced by Chairman Price's House Budget Committee meets our current defense demands by adding additional money into the war account. But I would reassure the ranking member that it funds that increase through a concomitant decrease in other spending. That will hold us on a trajectory to balance the budget in less than 10 years and then begin paying down the unprecedented debt that this administration has run up. Unfortunately, this plan is met with opposition from so-called defense hawks who want the extra spending for defense, which this budget provides, but who don't want to go through the fuss and bother of paying for it. And therein lies the problem. This is not just a 1-year increase. Because it increases defense spending without making other cuts, it changes the overall spending trajectory over the next 10 years. And here is the simple math of the matter. This adds more than $20 billion to our total spending this year, and it, in effect, repudiates the budget plan for additional reductions next year. On this new trajectory that these budget hawks would set, there will be no balanced budget in 10 years, even if we enacted every other reform called for in the budget and maintained all other departments within these constraints. After 10 years, we will still be running deficits of nearly $100 billion a year, and interest costs will have eaten us alive. That is why it is so important to pass the budget intact, without the amendments being proposed. I am curious how the self-proclaimed defense hawks claim to defend our country when our credit is shot and our debt service is approaching $1 trillion a year. They forget that in the spring of 1945, carrying a debt proportional to the one we have today, there was serious doubt over whether we could continue to conduct the war for another year. When he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullin warned that in his professional military judgment, the greatest threat to our national security is the national debt. He made that warning 5 years and $4\1/2\ trillion of debt ago. History warns us that countries that bankrupt themselves aren't around very long because before you can provide for the common defense, you have to be able to pay for it, and the ability of our Nation to do so is coming into grave doubt. The Budget Committee's budget offers us a very narrow path out of debt while continuing to fund our military at the requested levels, and its adoption, intact, is indispensable both to our short-term and to our long-term defense needs. Mr. Chairman, we have a stark choice before us: pay for the needed increases in defense by reducing other spending, or refuse to pay for those increases and sacrifice the long- term security and prosperity of our country on the altar of instant gratification. Amongst the most chilling words in history are those attributed to Louis XV, ``After us, the flood.'' Let that not be the epitaph of this Congress.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment removes the taxpayer subsidies and requires Amtrak to operate as a business, as we were promised it would when it was established back in 1971. Every year, as Amtrak's operating losses have mounted, Congress has dutifully shoveled more money at it to keep it afloat. Every year, its congressional supporters have promised reforms to bring these losses under control. And every year, these promises have fallen flat. This year, we are told, well, look at all the new reforms that we are building into this. In 5 years, they will have their act together. Well, how many times have we heard this promise? Let me cite just a few. Back in 1997, facing mounting criticism, the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act required Amtrak to operate without any Federal operating assistance after 2002. When that didn't happen, in 2008, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) attempted to eliminate only its most expensive route from reauthorization. That year, the gentleman from Minnesota, Jim Oberstar, called any reduction in subsidies a ``preemptive strike'' and promised that the bill was chock-full of reforms that would soon solve Amtrak's problems. Well, when that didn't happen, in 2014, the gentleman from Georgia, Paul Broun, proposed eliminating subsidies, just as my amendment does. At the time, the gentleman from Iowa, Tom Latham, said: ``I concede that Amtrak could be more efficient. However, it has made significant improvements in this area recently and is moving in the right direction.'' ``Moving in the right direction.'' This year, taxpayers will subsidize Amtrak in the amount of about $1.4 billion. The bill before us authorizes $1.4 billion for next year. Put another way, we will shell out $45 every time a passenger steps aboard an Amtrak train. That is $45 per passenger, per trip, and direct losses billed to taxpayers. That is up from $32 of loss per passenger 6 years ago. Despite endless promises, things are not getting better. Amtrak's apologists claim this is a 40 percent reduction in authorized funding. In fact, Amtrak received $1.4 billion in 2015, the same as this bill authorizes in 2016. Outside experts have reported that over the next 10 years, subsidizing Amtrak will cost taxpayers $49 billion. Let me put that in family-sized numbers. The average American family will have to cough up $392 from its taxes over the next 10 years just to cover Amtrak's losses. What does that $392 out of a family's taxes pay for? Well, among other things, Amtrak's food and beverage employees, who are paid an average of $106,000 a year to provide a service that lost over $800 million over the past decade just selling snacks on Amtrak trains. Are we at least seeing any improvements in service? Not hardly. Amtrak's monthly on-time performance has significantly declined. Bigger losses, declining service--that is not moving in the right direction. That was a false promise then, just like all of the other false promises we have heard since 1971. In last year's appropriations debate, Amtrak apologists warned that cutting off the subsidies would ``eliminate an entire transportation option.'' It does no such thing. Amtrak claims that it is running a profit on a heavily traveled Northeast corridor. Nothing in my amendment would change this. Anything Amtrak makes on these profitable routes, Amtrak keeps. With this amendment, Amtrak would be perfectly free to continue to operate and expand its Northeast corridor from its own profits and to subsidize its other money-losing operations to the extent that its profits would cover them. However, this amendment would end the practice of forcing American taxpayers to underwrite another 5 years of broken promises. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond to the ridership claims that it has no impact on congestion because the ridership is infinitesimal. You have to compare Amtrak's 31 million trips to the 650 million airline trips per year. According to Cato, the average American logs about 15,000 miles per year by car, 1,800 miles by plane, and just 20 miles on Amtrak. If Amtrak is making a profit, it can use those profits any way it wants--to continue its operations, to subsidize its losing routes. But it should not be tapping further into taxpayers' pockets. Voters have elected the biggest Republican majority in the House since 1928, with a resounding mandate to stop wasting money. Today this government is spending and taxing record amounts of families' earnings, and well above the 40-year average as a percentage of our economy. If we can't bring ourselves to cut this, one of the most outrageous subsidies in the entire budget, voters will have every right to ask what good are we? Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Obama majority on the FCC seized unprecedented control over the Internet under the guise of ``net neutrality.'' Net neutrality is the notion that the latest cat video is of equal importance to a teleconference consultation for a heart patient. To impose this leftist ideology on the Internet, the FCC has just placed it under the same stifling regulatory structure as the phone company or broadcast stations. This gives them potential control over content and it destroys the price-driven incentives for innovation, expansion, speed, economy, and service that Americans have long enjoyed. It means higher costs as government piles on new fees. It means slowed expansion as the natural incentives to invest are stifled. Europe operates under this sort of regulatory scheme, and its Internet service is conspicuously inferior, slower, and ponderous. The reason the Internet has grown and thrived is because government has kept its fat, corrupt, incompetent hands off of it. That era ended yesterday, and that is a shame.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Ann Whitley for her 25 years of service as the linchpin of the California Republican Party and thank her for working so tirelessly to make it possible for California Republicans to paint their principles in bold colors. Ann has devoted her life to the advancement of these principles. She has been a precinct captain, led volunteer drives, and served as President of the California Republican Women Federated. As Director of Membership for the California Republican Party, Ann has managed relationships with more than 2,000 members of the Republican State Central Committee. In this role, she has served as the liaison to 58 county chairmen, as well as to federal, state, and local Republican legislators. Ann has also been actively involved in recruiting new volunteers for the party and has organized numerous get- out-the vote drives across California and coordinated the twice-yearly party conventions. Ann is a courageous cancer survivor, who even in trying times remained loyal to the cause of freedom that inspired her throughout her life and became an institution to the party that upon Ann's retirement must fill a major void. Mr. Speaker, the California Republican Party will continue to reap Ann Whitley's contributions for years to come, and I rise to express my profound gratitude for her tremendous service.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, for more than 6 years, the President has called for taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects. In the first year of his administration, he squandered nearly $1 trillion on so-called shovel-ready projects that he later joked weren't shovel ready at all. Mr. Speaker, $1 trillion is $8,000 taken from every family in America, on average. That is what we spent. That is what he joked about when it turned out we got very little for it. Now along comes the Keystone pipeline. It promises $8 billion of private investment at no cost to taxpayers. That major infrastructure project would have produced 42,000 construction-related jobs and, when finished, more than a half million barrels a day of Canadian crude oil entering the American economy. That is what he vetoed after it was sent to him with bipartisan votes out of both Houses. He calls this middle class economics. The reality is it is a war on the middle class. And that is no joke.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, as we count down the days to the shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, a parade of Democrats has appeared on the floor to accuse Republicans of blocking funding. Have they completely forgotten that the House passed a bill to fully fund the Homeland Security Department back on January 14--31 days ago? Every House Democrat save two opposed that funding, and, for 31 days, Senate Democrats have blocked it from even being considered. The fact is that Democrats are willing to block funding for Homeland Security unless they can fund amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. According to a recent ABC-Washington Post poll, the American people want to stop the President's amnesty orders by a whopping 56-41 percent. Nine Senate Democrats have told their constituents they do, too, but they won't. Those are the facts. And, as John Adams said, facts are stubborn things.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, when we send our soldiers into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation to back them with the full might and resources that our country can muster and to give them the widest possible latitude for action. MacArthur was right: In war, there is no substitute for victory. The President proposes something very different: war by half measure; war on the cheap; war with dangerous restrictions on our troops; war with no clear objective other than to pull out in 3 years. I will not vote for the authorization that the President has requested. Given his obvious irresolution, I think the best immediate course for the United States is to assure that the regional powers currently engaged against the Islamic State have the material support they require.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, on March 28, the Orange County Alzheimer's Association will honor four individuals for their extraordinary contributions to advancing research and providing care for this debilitating disease. One of them is Carol Manning, and I would like to add my voice to the chorus of praise for her philanthropic work. I first met Carol 35 years ago. She and Everett were struggling to raise a family and make ends meet, and yet she still made time to volunteer for many civic endeavors. Today, Carol is president and CEO of TMS, Inc., Print Systems, a $30 million enterprise. And, yes, she and Everett did build that business from scratch with a lot of long hours and hard work and personal sacrifice. Carol still puts in those long hours, and yet she still makes time for so many worthy causes, Alzheimer's research being just one. On behalf of all of the people whose lives she has made better, I am honored to say thank you, Carol Manning.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, amidst all the controversies gripping Congress, certainly, we should all be able to agree that the full faith and credit of the United States should not hang in the balance every time there is a fiscal debate in Washington. This Nation now staggers under $18 trillion of debt, nearly $7.5 trillion of it run up during this administration. The interest on that debt is one of the fastest growing components of the Federal budget. If there is ever any doubt of the security or reliability of that debt owed by this government, interest rates would quickly rise, and our precarious budget situation could rapidly spin out of control. Ernest Hemingway put it this way. He asked: How do you go bankrupt? Two ways. First gradually, then suddenly. So it is with nations. The debt limit is how we regulate the Nation's debt. It is the national equivalent of a credit card limit. That limit has to be periodically adjusted. It is appropriate for Congress to take responsibility when it is raised. When it is raised, it is also appropriate for Congress 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; the bigger the controversy, the more credit markets are likely to be spooked into demanding 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. I am, today, introducing the Default Prevention Act with 43 cosponsors to guarantee that the sovereign debt of the United States Government will be paid in full and on time, under any circumstances, even total political gridlock. It 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 interest and principal 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. Three years ago, in testimony to the Senate, Ben Bernanke praised these State provisions for maintaining confidence in their bonds. This act passed the House in the 113th Congress, but it was never taken up by the Senate. Now, we are approaching the expiration of the government's current borrowing authority. We will soon have serious discussions over the level of our debt and the additional measures necessary to bring that debt under control. We all hope these discussions will go smoothly, but we all know that sometimes they don't. The Default Prevention Act says loudly and clearly to the world that no matter how much we may differ and quarrel, the sovereign debt of this Nation is guaranteed, and their loans to this government are absolutely safe. Last session, the Democrats opposed this measure, charging that it is an excuse not to pay our other bills. Do they actually suggest that all these other States--that have guaranteed their sovereign debts for generations, some for centuries--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. The most outrageous claim the Democrats made was that this measure paid China first. What nonsense. More than half of our debt is held by Americans, often in American pension funds. This act actually protects Americans far more than Chinese or other foreign investors. Whether our loans come from China or Timbuktu, from Grandma's pension fund or Johnny's savings bond, without the Nation's credit, we cannot meet any of our other obligations. 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 could 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 before Congress authorizes still more debt. I urge its speedy consideration.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep disappointment in the address by the President last night in this Chamber. Twenty years ago, President Clinton was in a similar position. He realized his policies weren't working; they had just been overwhelmingly rejected by voters and he faced the first Republican Congress in 40 years. So in his State of the Union Message 20 years ago, President Clinton changed course, proclaiming: ``The era of Big Government is over.'' And he made good on that proclamation. He reached across the aisle to the Republican Congress, and together they achieved some amazing things for the American people. Together, they reduced Federal spending by a remarkable 4 percent of GDP. They reformed entitlement spending--in Bill Clinton's words, ``ending welfare as we know it.'' They approved what amounted to the biggest capital gains tax cut in American history. They produced the only four balanced budgets that we have seen in 50 years. And the economy blossomed. We enjoyed one of the longest periods of economic expansion in our Nation's history. It wasn't a bipartisan lovefest. They clashed bitterly on matters great and small. Yet their accomplishments produced prosperity for our Nation and ensured President Clinton's popularity that endures to this day. President Obama thus has a working, proven model to salvage the last 2 years of his failed Presidency, and instead, he is squandering it. The President says he wants to sock it to the wealthy by placing new and heavy taxes on investment. But the simple truth of the matter is, when you tax something, you get less of it. When you tax investment, you get less investment at precisely that time when our economy desperately needs greater investment for more and better-paying jobs. A smaller percentage of our people are working today than at any time in more than 30 years. Until last year, median family income had fallen throughout this administration. The American people don't want more government handouts. They need more jobs and better jobs, and that means more investment, not less. They need a job market that isn't flooded with millions of illegal immigrants undercutting their wages and opportunities. Indeed, it was recently estimated that the number of illegal immigrants working in direct defiance of Federal law is as much as the net increase in jobs throughout this administration. Most Americans are not getting ahead. We now suffer the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, and American businesses are fleeing from it. Who would have thought that socialist Sweden would today be considered a tax haven compared to the United States? Our people need those American jobs back in America. Yet the President seeks to raise taxes still further at a time when the Federal Government is already extracting record tax revenues from our people. The percentage of our economy now consumed by Federal taxes is well above the 40-year average. Our economic problems are not the fault of taxpayers for not paying enough taxes. The President says he wants to help the middle class, but the proposals he set before us last night would drag the middle class still further down the dark road of debt and doubt and despair that we have been on. If higher taxes and more burdensome regulations were the path to prosperity, we should be enjoying a new economic golden age today. If higher government spending and soak-the-rich policies were the antidote to income inequality, we should today be enjoying an egalitarian paradise. The reality is these policies have never worked. They have suppressed what should have been a robust economic recovery. They have increased the economic inequalities in our society. They have buried our children under a mountain of debt that will stalk them for the rest of their lives. The answer to income inequality and economic stagnation is genuine economic growth that requires reducing the burdens that government has placed on our economy. It worked when Bill Clinton did it, when Ronald Reagan did it, and when John F. Kennedy did it. In fact, Kennedy was right: a rising tide lifts all boats. Yet Barack Obama clings obstinately to the opposite policies. It shouldn't surprise us that he is getting the opposite results. He had a fleeting opportunity last night to bend to the will of the voters, reverse these policies, and redeem his place in history. Instead, Whittier's words seem appropriate this morning: Of all sad words of tongue or pen, this saddest are these: ``It might have been.''

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, this is Placer County Sheriff's Deputy Michael Davis, Jr. You may have heard of him. He was gunned down on October 24 of last year in one of the most shocking murder rampages in the history of that county. He was murdered on the 26th anniversary of the day that he lost his father, a Riverside County sheriff's deputy, in the line of duty. The suspect, who also killed a Sacramento sheriff's deputy and wounded an innocent bystander, should never have been here. He was a convicted felon who had entered our country illegally from Mexico. He had been twice deported for his crimes, only to reenter time and again over our unsecured border. I met with Michael Davis' grieving family this weekend, including his remarkable mother, Debbie, and his sole surviving brother, Jason, who also serves as a Placer County sheriff's deputy. The message they asked me to convey today is that this is not about immigration--in fact, Jason spends his free time working with at-risk Latino children, many from immigrant families--rather, this is about the rule of law, including respect for our immigration laws for which this family has sacrificed so much. We pride ourselves on being a nation of laws and not of men. That means the President is sworn to enforce the laws, not to make them. He doesn't get to change or to repeal laws by decree or decide who must obey the law and who gets to live above it; yet that is precisely what he has done. In so doing, he has placed the public safety and the Nation's security at great risk. This measure begins to walk back these unconstitutional orders, secure our borders, repair our Nation's sovereignty, and recover the rule of law. Michael Davis died for these principles. The least we can do is to vote to restore them.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Section 5: ``Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.'' Section 6: ``This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.''

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the constitutional issues involving the President's executive orders on amnesty far transcend the issue of illegal immigration. The President's action strikes at the very heart of our separation of powers. The Constitution reserves to Congress alone the power to enact and alter law, and it charges the President with the responsibility to faithfully execute those laws. If the President can seize legislative power in this manner and then boast to an audience that he, himself, has changed the law, then the separation of powers becomes meaningless, and our constitutional Republic will have crossed a very bright line that separates a nation of laws from the unhappy societies where rulers boast that the ``law is in their mouths.'' If this precedent stands, every succeeding President, Republican and Democrat, will cite it as authority to make or alter law by decree. This cannot be allowed to happen. The question occurs: What can the House do? Well, it took its first step last week by passing H.R. 5759 that declares the President's action unconstitutional and null and void. This was a symbolic act since the bill is subject to Presidential veto, but it was a warning that the President should have heeded. Obviously, he has not. What else can the Congress do? One of the fundamental checks held by Congress is the power of appropriation. It can close the purse by forbidding the use of Federal funds to proceed with this unconstitutional act. I realize that is a very difficult thing to do with a dysfunctional Senate, but a temporary funding measure into January or February would protect us against the prospect of a government shutdown while we try to engage the Senate to rise in defense of the Constitution. And if the Democratic Senate will not defend our Constitution, and I am afraid that is a strong possibility, a few weeks from now the Republican Senate certainly will. Why in the world would we want to lock in Federal spending through next September that reflects the priorities of the Democratic Senate that voters just thoroughly repudiated last month? Why in the world would we want to so greatly weaken our position to insist on the complete defunding of the President's unconstitutional act in the next congressional session just 3 weeks hence? Meanwhile, it is imperative that the House take every action available to engage the Supreme Court to resolve this constitutional crisis. Several States have already filed suit, and the House needs to join them. In addition, the House needs to vote as an institution to challenge this act directly. This is too important to be treated as an afterthought on current litigation over ObamaCare. It needs to be voted on separately, unequivocally, and now. Since the earliest days of our Republic, the Supreme Court has invalidated legislative acts that conflicted with the Constitution. Now it must be called upon to invalidate an executive act that strikes at the very core of our Constitution. Regardless of the ideologies of individual Justices, I cannot believe that any of them would sit idly by as the Executive seizes such fundamental powers from the legislative branch. On behalf of the House, the Speaker announced last month that we would fight this act tooth and nail. To adjourn tomorrow, having taken only a symbolic vote, while abandoning our actual powers to challenge this act undermines the credibility of the House majority. Elements on the extreme left argue that this act was justified due to congressional inaction over immigration reform. They fault the House for not adopting a Senate immigration measure, but they forget the House passed a strong immigration bill this summer and the Senate refused to consider it. Since when has congressional disagreement over legislation been license for the President to legislate himself? This argument abandons the Constitution and the rule of law for the expediency of one-man rule. We should recognize such arguments for what they are: the authoritarianism of the extreme left. We should reject these arguments and those who make them. Mr. Speaker, the Roman Republic died when Julius Caesar seized the legislative authority of the Roman Senate. Repeated acts of usurpation went unchallenged until the constitutional structure of the Republic simply disintegrated. Let that not be the epitaph of the American Republic. Of this crisis, let history record that men and women of good will on both sides of the aisle joined together to defend the Constitution that they swore to uphold, and that this generation passed that Constitution and all of the freedoms it has preserved, intact and inviolate, to the many generations of Americans who followed.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, California's regulatory drought was causing enormous economic damage and human hardship long before the historic natural drought that has now stricken the State. And through all of those years, the House has passed legislation repeatedly to address it. Finally, after years of inaction, the Senate produced a modest measure to provide very limited flexibility for water managers to deal with it. This bill largely reflects those provisions. It is a temporary, stopgap measure that suspends no environmental laws and no regulations. It simply tasks Federal water managers to conserve our water for beneficial human use to the maximum extent possible once all State and Federal environmental and water rights laws have been fulfilled. Let me repeat: the bill explicitly requires all environmental laws and regulations to be adhered to. All the House added to the Senate bill are provisions to strengthen water rights for areas of origin by adding Federal protection over these rights. During the worst drought in California's history, we continue to release billions of gallons of water from our dams just to adjust river temperatures for the fish. Sadly, this bill doesn't even affect this wasteful practice. But during the next year and a half, it does give limited flexibility to water managers within these laws. That is important because we are getting some rainfall this season, and once all of the environmental laws have been fulfilled, we desperately need to store what surplus remains for what could be another very dry year. To take that surplus above and beyond what is needed to meet all of our environmental mandates and dump it into the Pacific Ocean, as my colleagues on the left suggest we should do, is nothing short of lunacy. The fact that this very modest bill has evoked such apoplexy from the left is a measure of just how extreme and out of touch they have become. I wish this bill did much more, but it is a start.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life, achievements, and service of World War II veteran Bill Bastian. Bill joined the United States Army in 1942, serving during the height of the Second World War as an officer in the 203rd Engineer Combat Battalion. Throughout the course of the war, Bill served as company commander, assistant operations officer, and battalion motor and liaison officer. He was among the brave soldiers who landed on Omaha Beach on D-Day, June 6, 1944. After the invasion, Bill served as communication liaison officer. He risked his life to ensure that communications remained intact throughout the American advance in France. He was redeployed to Belgium just before Christmas of 1944, where he faced the brunt of the German offensive in the Battle of the Bulge. During the invasion of Germany, Bill helped construct the bridge over the Fulda River between Frankfurt and Kassel. As instrumental as this project was, Bill Bastian's contribution to protecting our country's ideals was far greater. He was a proven leader, who valued the resourcefulness of the Americans he commanded. Bill noted that most of the recruits did not even know how to drive a car when they joined the service, but by the end of the conflict, they could operate large machinery, build roads, and repair equipment. Bill once remarked: ``Americans are people that can look at a job, figure out how to get it done, and then get the job done.'' This is the same manner in which he led his life after the Army. Bill was more than a soldier; he was a loving husband to his wife of 63 years, Melba. After her passing, Bill devoted his time to leading tours of the Normandy beachhead and the French cemeteries where many of his former comrades are buried. In recent years, Bill's moving radio commentaries have kept the stories of his generation's sacrifice alive. This brave veteran's service and devotion to the United States and to liberty lives on in the freedom enjoyed by all Americans. It is my privilege to rise in honor of the life and service of Bill Bastian.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this question transcends the issue of illegal immigration. The President's action has crossed a very bright line that separates the American Republic, which prides itself on being a nation of laws and not of men, from those unhappy regimes whose rulers boast that the law is in their mouths. It is true that throughout the Nation's history, Presidents have tested the limits of their authority, but this is the first time a Chief Executive, who is charged with the responsibility to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' has asserted the absolute power to nullify or change these laws by decree. Under our Constitution, the President does not get to pick which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore. He does not get to pick who must obey the law and who gets to live above the law. He is forbidden from making laws himself. ``All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.'' Whether we choose to recognize it or not, this is a full-fledged constitutional crisis. If this precedent is allowed to stand, it will render meaningless the separation of powers and the checks and balances that comprise the fundamental architecture of our Constitution, that have preserved our freedom for 225 years. If this precedent stands, every future President--Republican and Democrat--will cite it as justification for lawmaking by decree. The measure before us is the first act of this Congress to restore the balance of powers within this government. The President would be well advised to heed it before sterner measures are required. The seizure of legislative authority by the executive proved fatal to the Roman republic. Now that is happening in our own time. Let that not be the legacy of this administration. For more than two centuries, Americans have successfully defended our Constitution, and now history requires this generation to do so again, which it does beginning with this measure today.