Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the genius of our Constitution can be found in the separation of powers that has preserved our freedom for 225 years. The American Founders recognized that what had gone so terribly wrong in Europe was that the same organ of government that made the law also enforced that law and adjudicated it. All the powers were in the same hands. They wanted to protect their new Nation from such a fate. So they divided the powers of government. Congress, and Congress alone, makes the law. ``All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.'' You want many voices in that decisionmaking process. You want a great, big, messy debate. That is the Congress. Once that decision is made, it needs to be carried out by a single will, a single branch, headed by one individual whom the Constitution commands to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' One person does not get to make the law in this Republic. The President is called upon to enforce the law. Fundamentally, that means he does not get to pick and choose which laws he will enforce and which laws he will ignore. He does not get to pick and choose who must obey the law and who gets to live above the law. And he does not get to change laws or make laws by decree. That is the difference between the American Republic that prides itself on being a nation of laws and not of men and the European despots of old who boasted that the law was in their mouths. Mr. Speaker, last week the President asserted an entirely unconstitutional power to nullify existing immigration law by ordering the executive branch to simply ignore it. Further, he has ordered 34 million green cards to allow businesses to hire illegal immigrants, despite Federal law that explicitly forbids their employment. Throughout our Nation's history, executives have tested the limits of their power, but this act crosses a very bright line. Fortunately, the American Founders anticipated that some day a President might attempt to subvert the Constitution in this manner, and they provided a variety of defenses available to both the legislative and the judicial branches. The legislative branch has the power of the purse, but that power is temporarily constrained by the partisan division between the House and the Senate. Fortunately, the American people have acted to end that division in January. But I fear that any confrontation between the executive and the legislative branches could ultimately end in stalemate. The third branch of government, the judiciary, must be brought into this process. Since our earliest days, the Supreme Court has guarded our Nation from unconstitutional acts by both the legislative and executive branches, and that role is desperately needed now. I believe there is no substitute for Congress doing everything within its power to invoke judicial intervention. I cannot believe that even the most devoted liberals on the bench can be comfortable with this brazen act of usurpation. Assuming the Court stands with the Constitution, the President would have no choice but to back down or face a catastrophic public and congressional backlash. Whether we choose to recognize it, this is a full-fledged constitutional crisis. If allowed to stand, this precedent renders meaningless the separation of powers and the checks and balances that comprise the fundamental architecture of our Constitution. If it stands, every future President, Republican and Democrat, will cite it as justification for lawmaking by decree. The seizure of legislative authority by the executive is fatal to a republic such as ours. Indeed, it was Julius Caesar's usurpation of the Roman senate's legislative prerogatives that brought down the Roman republic and began four centuries of dictatorship. Once the rule of one man is established over the rule of law, it is a very difficult thing to stop. Unlike every law that is passed under our Constitution, the Constitution itself has no penalties for those who break it. The reason is that the Constitution was written to be self-enforcing, but that only happens if the powers of government are evenly balanced. The Founders relied on each branch acting to keep those powers in balance. Now, in our time, that responsibility is ours.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, on October 24, Sacramento County Sheriff's Deputy Danny Oliver and Placer County Detective Michael David Davis were wantonly gunned down in one of the most cold-blooded rampages in the history of either county. By all accounts these were exemplary law enforcement officers, fathers, husbands, sons, and neighbors. Deputy Oliver spoke his last words as he approached a car in a parking lot for the simple purpose of asking if he could help a couple who appeared to be lost. How is it going? he said. The gunman and his accomplice next gunned down a bystander who was too slow in turning over his car keys as the couple hijacked his car. Miraculously, the bystander survived a gunshot wound to the head but vividly remembers the smile on the gunman's face as he pulled the trigger. The next victim was Detective Michael Davis. You may have heard of him. On the very same date 26 years earlier, Michael Davis' father was killed in the line of duty as a Riverside County Sheriff's Deputy. Michael was 16 years old at the time. Mr. Speaker, I wish there were some words of consolation to offer the grieving families of Danny Oliver and Michael Davis, but there are limits to our language, and words fail us when they are the most needed, but I know this: that the esteem and gratitude that our communities hold for these two officers and the sympathy we feel for the terrible losses their families have sustained could be seen most vividly and eloquently in the solemn faces of literally thousands of ordinary citizens who lined the funeral route for these officers or who stood silent vigil outside the church where they were mourned. As I looked at the law enforcement officers from throughout the country who had come to honor these fallen peace officers at their funerals, it occurred to me that Deputy Oliver and Detective Davis and their many brothers and sisters in law enforcement are the business end of all of the highest principles of this amazing Republic of ours--a society that proudly proclaims itself a nation of laws. We often speak of the rule of law, but who among us is willing to lay down our lives for it? Michael Davis was. Danny Oliver was. Because of their sacrifices, this rampage ended without a single civilian death. They protected us, but did we do everything we could to protect them? Their assailant had repeatedly entered this country illegally. While here, he had been apprehended for committing other crimes and had been repeatedly deported, only to easily recross the border without even being challenged. That is a subject for another day. On this day, we should reflect on the agony of the Oliver and Davis families, who have lost devoted husbands and fathers. We should reflect on the extraordinary courage of our peace officers who bear growing and mortal risks every day to protect the peace that we too often take for granted. Michael Davis' brother Jason eulogized his older brother. Jason is also a Placer County Deputy and was on the scene only minutes after his brother had been shot. Their third brother, Christopher, had died in 1998 in an accident as he, too, had been preparing for a career in law enforcement. And Jason, who had been present 26 years before when his mother was told of his father's death, who 16 years ago had informed their mother of Chris' death, and who days before had told her of Michael's death, looked at his grieving mother and asked the question if all of their pain justified their family's commitment to law enforcement. Without hesitation, he answered, ``Yes.'' I don't know where we get men like Danny Oliver and Michael Davis, but I know what we owe them. Of course, we owe them our gratitude and every honor that we can bestow upon them, but most of all, we owe it to them, to their families, and to their fellow officers to be just as devoted to the rule of law as they were. If we, the people, would do that, then we will have proven Jason Davis right--that their extraordinary devotion to these principles is as justified as it is noble.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Jewish Community Center of Granite Bay, California, and join in celebrating the commissioning of a new community Torah scroll. Opened in 2005 as a local home for Jewish life in Placer County, the Chabad House Jewish Community Center serves as a center of education and support to the local Jewish community and an inspiration to people from all walks of life. The Granite Bay center is a branch of the International Chabad movement, which seeks to promote a greater awareness of education, morality and decency among all people. Chabad serves the community through a wide variety of services and programs, including by making the beauty of Jewish principles and heritage accessible to all Jews, and by bringing Jewish traditions into their daily lives. As part of this effort, the Chabad House Jewish Community Center has commissioned a professional scribe in Israel to write a Torah scroll in the traditional method, which dates back thousands of years. The Torah, a sacred text over 3,300 years old, 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. On October 26, 2014, members of the Jewish community gathered with rabbis and community leaders in Placer County to witness the first letters of the Torah being inscribed. Mr. Speaker, since the inception of our nation organizations like the Chabad House Jewish Community Center have been the bedrocks of their communities; and bastions of civic engagement upon which our society depends. As 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 our community and I am proud to join in honoring this auspicious occasion.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with Representative Ami Bera, Representative Doris Matsui, and Representative Doug LaMalfa, in honor of the service and sacrifice of Sacramento County, California, Sheriff Deputy Danny Oliver. Danny Oliver grew up in the Del Paso Heights neighborhood of Sacramento, where he graduated from Grant High School. During his youth, Danny experienced parts of the community that he was determined to improve. This drove his desire to work in law enforcement, even though he came from a family of firefighters. Danny finished the academy at the top of his class and served with the Sheriff's Department for fifteen years. In keeping with the life- long goal of cleaning up his community, Deputy Oliver worked on a highly competitive team of problem-oriented policing officers. Tragically, Deputy Oliver was killed in the line of duty on October 24, 2014, during a violent crime spree that would later take the life of another officer, Detective Michael David Davis, Jr. Deputy Oliver died for his love of and devotion to his community. Danny loved going into his job an hour early every morning, knowing he was putting his life on the line to make a difference in Sacramento County. While his sacrifice is to be honored, this is not his legacy. Rather, Danny's legacy is the memory of the man he lived his life as: a devoted husband to his wife Susan, a father who guided and supported his two children, and a dedicated officer. Mr. Speaker, Deputy Danny Oliver will be deeply and sorely missed not only by his family, but also by the community that he tirelessly worked to better. The State of California is particularly blessed to have such men of character and heroism protecting our citizens. Danny was known for influencing his children to do what they love, just as he did. We can all learn from his heart and strength of character. It is my privilege to rise in recognition of his sacrifice and to honor his memory.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with Representative Doug LaMalfa, in honor of the service and sacrifice of Placer County, California, Sheriff Detective Michael David Davis, Jr. A long-time resident of Roseville, Detective Davis was a man of integrity and compassion. He cared about the community and took initiative to protect and better it. Such an example would be when Michael organized a funeral for an abandoned baby. On October 24th, Detective Davis displayed immense courage and gallantry during a manhunt for the murderer of a fellow officer, Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff Danny Oliver. Detective Davis was killed in the line of duty, just as his father was struck down 26 years prior to the day. Detective Davis faithfully and honorably served the Placer County community, joining the Sheriff's office in 1996. For the past fifteen years, Michael contributed to his family's legacy of law enforcement, just as his father did before him. Michael tirelessly worked as a homicide investigator, but he will be remembered for much more. His bravery and kind soul will never be forgotten. He was a family man, devoted to his loving wife and four children. Michael is also survived by his four siblings, mother and step-father. Mr. Speaker, Detective Michael David Davis, Jr. will be deeply and sorely missed not only by his family, but also by his community. The State of California, and particularly the Fourth Congressional District, was blessed to have had such a man of character and heroism protecting our citizens. Michael's legacy will live on in the lives that he touched. Just as he served, he died embodying the virtues that form the foundation of this great nation. It is my privilege to rise in recognition of his sacrifice for Placer County and to honor his memory.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of The Honorable Janet Bibby, Mariposa County Supervisor. Janet Bibby was born and raised in Mariposa County. She grew up in a ranching family with five generations of deep roots in the community. Ms. Bibby's love of community forged the beginnings of her career as a public servant in Mariposa County in 1985. Janet served as the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and worked in the District Attorney's office and the Farm Advisors office. As a clerk in the District Attorney's office, she devoted herself to making the community a better place to live, work, and recreate. She was elected to the Mariposa Board of Supervisors in 2003 to represent the third district--an honor she has held for the past eleven years. Janet Bibby has taken her commitment to public service seriously, tirelessly working for the constituents of Mariposa County. Her contributions to the advancement of agriculture in Mariposa are notable, as she has promoted the industry throughout her career. Janet has been involved in a variety of county-improvement projects to benefit those she represents, including: the Yosemite Wastewater Treatment Project, the construction of the Don Pedro Wastewater Treatment Facility, a multitude of projects to improve the local airport, and innumerable efforts to improve funding and support for fire stations. Janet has also made significant efforts to make the county family- focused, such as the creation of the Recreational Sports Complex, the Mariposa Park Amphitheatre, the Arts Park, and the Skate Park. This is only a sampling of the work Ms. Bibby has done for the community. She constantly strives to make Mariposa safer, stronger, and more united. I am proud to honor and thank Mariposa County District Three Supervisor Janet Bibby for her many years of public and community service.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, contrary to the President's assertion last week, the Islamic State is Islamic and it is a State, or at least it has all the attributes of a State. It is precisely this combination that makes it so dangerous, a messianic and clearly stated intention to wage jihad on American soil and the resources and equipment to do so. In response to this danger, the President proposes that the United States wage a continuing air war against the Islamic State, but to avoid any commitment of ground forces. Instead, he seeks to use vetted elements of the Free Syrian Army as the American proxy force and proposes to arm and train them for that purpose. This raises two major concerns. First, many elements of the Free Syrian Army have a long history of collaborating with the Islamic State. Its principal mission is to destroy the Syrian Government, which though utterly despotic, is currently fighting the Islamic State. We court a very real risk that this equipment will either be turned against Syria as it fights the IS, or turned over to the IS as elements of Iraqi Security Forces recently did. Second, committing insufficient force in any conflict is self- defeating, and air strikes alone cannot win a war. For 13 years, the brave young Americans who stepped forward to defend our country after 9/11 have found themselves hamstrung by political correctness on the battlefield, perilously commingled with hostile forces, endangered by rules of engagement that undermine their ability to defend themselves, and denied the full resources and commitment of our country. We are in precarious times, with an administration that either cannot or will not learn from the mistakes of the past. Until we are prepared to put the full might and resources of our Nation behind a war against the Islamic State, we can at least act to contain IS advances, protect our people, and restore the martial strength and national will that will certainly be needed in the years ahead. First, I believe the President is correct to order selected air strikes in tactical support of resistance forces where they are actively engaged against the IS. Where we can turn the tide of battle in these engagements, we must. And the immediate destruction of oil fields under IS control is vital to reduce the resources that it is currently converting to cash. Second, it is appropriate to take immediate, significant, and focused retaliatory strikes against the Islamic State in response to specific acts that it commits against American interests. This is the Reagan model in Libya, and it worked. Third, the direct threat posed to the United States by the IS is not on Syrian or Iraqi soil, but on American soil. The Islamic State has been explicit in declaring its intention to insert a Fifth Column within our borders and wage jihad on Americans. For far too long we have ignored the threat posed by a wide open southern border, lax enforcement on the northern border, and nonenforcement of visa overstays. And this neglect needs to stop now. We must secure our borders, enforce the time limits on visas, and change the law to revoke the passports of any American who takes up arms for the Islamic State. Fourth, we must recognize that the improving world situation that justified reducing military spending in recent years has now reversed, and so must our priorities. The world is now becoming more dangerous and unstable, and our military budget must be adjusted to meet that growing danger. Our Nation's weakened fiscal condition requires a comprehensive review of our spending priorities as a matter of vital national security. Fifth, we must assure that our only reliable ally in the Middle East, Israel, has all the equipment and supplies and assistance it may need in coming years, and that it will have the unqualified support of the United States when it must take action for its own security. Mr. Speaker, Islamic fascism is now advancing into a vacuum that many past blunders have created, the worst of them being to underestimate the terrible demands that war requires. These are mistakes we can no longer afford to make. Confronting the rise of European fascism in the 1930s, Churchill counseled measured resistance where possible, while undertaking utmost martial preparation. That advice lights our path that we must take today.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, all of us recognize the threat posed to our Nation by the Islamic State. The question before us is whether to arm and train supposedly carefully vetted elements of the Free Syrian Army as a proxy ground force. I respect the intentions of the supporters, but this proposal runs a great risk of backfiring. The FSA is a marriage of convenience among many Islamic factions that have a long history of collaborating with the Islamic State. The singular purpose of the FSA is not to destroy the Islamic State. It exists to destroy the Syrian Government that is now actively fighting against the Islamic State. The equipment we provide to the FSA could easily be turned against the Syrian Government, which, despite all of its despotic tendencies, is at least at war with the IS right now, and we would weaken our overall strategic position. Or this equipment could be turned over to the Islamic State, as we watched carefully vetted Iraqi security forces recently do. In fact, that is the reason the Islamic State is armed to the teeth with American equipment. Neither we nor the world can afford more blunders or miscalculations in this region. We should have learned by now that alliances in the Islamic Middle East are in constant flux. An ally today is a sworn enemy tomorrow. In fact, often our allies are our enemies. After I was elected, the first man killed from my district in Iraq, Army Specialist Jeremiah McCleery, died when ``carefully vetted'' Iraqi soldiers turned their American-provided weapons on him. The most recent fatality from my district, Marine Staff Sergeant Sky Mote, died when ``carefully vetted'' Afghan police turned their American-provided weapons on him. Madam Speaker, our consistent experience in this region should be screaming this warning at us. We are making a big mistake.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution, Gold Trail chapter and Sierra Amador chapter, as they celebrate the two hundred twenty-seventh anniversary of the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America. The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution was founded in 1890 with the mission of promoting historic preservation, education, and patriotism. The Gold Trail and Sierra Amador chapters include members across California's fourth district. The Gold Trail chapter has 154 members-- some of whom are direct descendants of the Founding Fathers--residing in Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln, Loomis, Granite Bay, and Folsom. The Sierra Amador chapter has more than 70 members residing in Amador, Calaveras, and surrounding counties. I rise to join the Gold Trail and Sierra Amador chapters of the Daughters of the American Revolution in observing ``Constitution Week'' from September 17 through September 23. This week will be dedicated to paying tribute to our foundational document and the freedom that it continues to enshrine two hundred twenty-seven years after its drafting. Mr. Speaker, Daniel Webster charged that our nation must ``Hold on . . . to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.'' It is groups like the Gold Trail and Sierra Amador chapters who are heeding Webster's charge and preserving the Constitution for future generations. The Constitution of the United States of America ensures through the written law that the individual liberties of all Americans are protected and preserved, and it is my privilege to rise in recognition of the Gold Trail and Sierra Amador chapters' efforts to honor this anniversary with a weeklong tribute.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, we are watching the rise of Islamic fascism on a scale unprecedented in modern times. It may be wrapped in different symbols and trace genealogy through a different line, but at its core, it is fascism. Listen to its virulent anti-Semitism, the explicit promise of genocide against Israel, the utter rejection-- indeed, disdain--for fundamental principles of democracy and human rights and justice. There can be no doubt what is happening. European fascism might have consumed all of Europe except for one gritty holdout: for more than a year Great Britain stood in the breach. Had it fallen, the consequences would have been unthinkable. Today, one gritty holdout stands against the rise of Islamic fascism in the Middle East. Israel is the only island of democracy and civilization left in that region, and it is standing alone and in the breach. The current conflict between Israel and Hamas offers a clear distinction between good and evil. Israel took control of the Gaza Strip as a result of the Six-Day War in 1967. It granted self-governance to the region in 1994, and in 2005, unilaterally withdrew its forces. The resulting Hamas government has since militarized Gaza and used it as a launching site for continuing and escalating attacks against the civilian Israeli population, with the avowed objective of wiping Israel off the map. The Arab Spring welcomed by the Obama administration brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt. During its brief tenure, it opened a road for the mass importation of weapons to Hamas. These weapons, and others smuggled in by sea, were strategically placed in schools and hospitals and fired upon Israeli cities without provocation. As Churchill once said of Britain: Israel did everything it could to secure peace. Perhaps it did too much. The result was thousands of rocket attacks and many terrorist incursions by Hamas aimed solely at the civilian population. Israel finally did what any civilization must do under such circumstances: it finally fought back. Hamas has deliberately staged its attacks from hospitals, schools, and mosques, using children as human shields, leaving the Israelis the Hobson's choice of enduring the killing of their own population or taking out the instruments of destruction that are deliberately sited in schools and hospitals. They have chosen to defend themselves. There is absolutely no doubt of Hamas' objectives and that of its allies: they have been crystal clear and unwavering on their intention to destroy Israel and kill every Israeli. They seek to eradicate the Jewish homeland, whose history in the region stretches back more than 3,000 years. Their allies have been intent on annihilating every Christian and Jew in the Middle East, and they are well on their way toward achieving this goal. It would be the height of naivete to believe that it will stop. Yet, this administration, and many on the Left, seem to view the two sides as moral equivalents. Many on the Left even portray Israel as the aggressor. Israel has made the decision to by force demilitarize Gaza for its own survival. It is now making serious progress and degrading Hamas' ability to make war. That is the only true path to peace. Yet, the Obama administration is now working to halt Israel's progress and allow Hamas the time to resupply and regroup and resume its attacks. This serves only the objectives of Hamas and is a prescription for prolonged war and bloodshed. Hamas has broken every cease-fire it has agreed to, and Israel has abided by every cease-fire, often holding return fire for hours after Hamas has broken these accords. There is no reason to believe that Hamas will abide by future cease-fires the moment it has recovered its war-making capabilities. Why would this administration interfere in this manner, the effect of which is to take sides against the only pro-Western regime left in the Middle East? Today, all that stands between a peaceful and free world and a fanatical fascist caliphate stretching from the Bosphorus to North Africa is the state of Israel and the influence of the Western democracies, particularly that of the United States. In 1929, Churchill warned of Britain's irresolution in the Middle East. He said: ``Any appearance of lack of willpower on the part of the British government or of lack of confidence in its mission in these countries blows like a draught of air on the dull, fierce embers.'' Mr. Speaker, at this perilous hour, let us not repeat the mistakes of history.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the Endangered Species Act serves a great cause, to prevent the extinction of any species because of human activity, but as Eric Hoffer warned: Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket. Unfortunately, in the last 4 years, the ESA has become the basis for an explosion of lawsuits seeking to force hundreds of new species listings. Many of these suits are funded at taxpayers' expense, which in turn require Federal, State, and local agencies to spend even more taxpayer money to respond. In northern California last month, this kind of litigation resulted in designating 2 million acres of the Sierra as critical habitat for three amphibians, despite overwhelming evidence that human activity is not to blame. The cause of the decline is nonnative predators and a virus affecting all amphibian species in the region. The Natural Resources Committee has heard hours of testimony of how these decisions are based on highly questionable data from advocacy groups that include major mathematical errors, rank speculation, and selective suppression of data in order to arrive at predetermined conclusions. This measure before us begins to address these abuses. It requires that supporting data be readily available to the general public, thus assuring greater scrutiny, and it requires that the government use the best available science and data from all sources. It addresses the litigation crisis by requiring that legal costs be tracked and publicly reported, and it conforms those costs to the Equal Access to Justice Act that prevents extravagant claims for legal fees. Louis Brandeis said that sunlight is the best of disinfectants. This bill places the data for implementing the ESA back into the sunlight where it can be fully scrutinized, and it places a modicum of restraint on the legal fees sought by out-of-control litigants.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, wherever I go, people express a growing anger over the illegal immigration that is overwhelming our southern border. People ask me: ``How can we talk about securing the border in Ukraine or Iraq while our own border is wide open?'' ``How can we talk about supporting the population of Central America when we are nearly $18 trillion in debt?'' ``How can we talk about giving jobs to millions of illegal immigrants when fewer Americans are working today than when this so-called recovery began?'' They ask: ``If the Federal Government can't defend our own border, what good is it?'' Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer them. The fact is, our southern border is wide open. It is practically undefended, and everybody knows it. The many thousands streaming across it know that if they break our laws and enter our country illegally, they will be rewarded with free food, clothing, housing, medical care, transportation, legal representation, and relocation, all at the expense of struggling American families. Ninety-five percent of them believe they will get ``permiso'' to stay and, at the moment, they are right. Until we fundamentally change this reality, the mass incursion of our borders will continue, and our Nation's sovereignty will slowly fade away. The American people are awakening to the danger that illegal immigration poses to our country. It is crowding out millions of jobs desperately needed by American workers. It is overwhelming our schools, our hospitals, our courts, law enforcement, prisons, and our local and State budgets. Perhaps worst of all, it is undermining the process of legal immigration upon which our country is founded. Why should anyone go to the expense and trouble of obeying our immigration laws when they can reap rich rewards simply by defying them? This administration has actively encouraged this crisis with its promises of amnesty, and it now needs another $4 billion to feed, clothe, and house this new surge. Conspicuously lacking from the President's proposal is any serious effort at enforcement or deportation. The advocates of illegal immigration tell us we need comprehensive immigration reform, but what they really mean is extending some form of amnesty to those now illegally in this country. Yet, it is precisely these promises of amnesty that are causing and encouraging the mass migration we are now seeing. Any short-term measure this House approves must include provisions: First, to rescind the President's unlawful Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals order that has clearly encouraged the current surge; Second, to detain all of these new arrivals while expedited deportation hearings proceed; Third, to provide unrestricted access for law enforcement to all Federal lands at the border; And fourth, to activate the National Guard in whatever numbers are necessary to secure our southern border now. Once the immediate tide has been turned back, it is imperative that existing laws are enforced before any new laws are considered, including: Rigorous enforcement of sanctions against any employer who hires an illegal immigrant; Completion of the border fence that was authorized in 2006; Deportation of any illegal immigrant who comes into contact with law enforcement or who illegally applies for government assistance; and Resumption of Federal cooperation with local and State law enforcement agencies to ensure enforcement of our immigration law. If we are not willing to enforce our current laws, there is no reason to believe that any future laws will be enforced. And until we enforce them, we really can't accurately assess what changes might be needed. The people with whom I talk are tired of excuses. They are tired of promises of future reforms. They want to see our current laws enforced and our border secured, and every act of this House should be focused on pressuring the President to do so. History is shouting this warning at us: that nations that either cannot or will not defend their borders aren't around very long. Let that not be the legacy of this administration, and let it not be the epitaph of the American Republic.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1192) to redesignate Mammoth Peak in Yosemite National Park as ``Mount Jessie Benton Fremont''.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his kind words and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1192 would redesignate Mammoth Peak in Yosemite National Park as Mount Jessie Benton Fremont. The bill is brought to us by a group of local park enthusiasts and historians, with the support of the El Dorado County Historical Society. Its purpose is to recognize this pioneer who played a significant role in establishing Yosemite National Park. Jessie Benton Fremont was the daughter of U.S. Senator Thomas Hart Benton, a prominent Democrat who was a leading proponent of the Nation's westward expansion. In 1841, she married John C. Fremont, a prominent Republican, an American military officer, explorer, and-- later--a Presidential candidate. She traveled to California in 1849 and, soon thereafter, became one of the most influential advocates for establishing Yosemite National Park. When we think of Yosemite, we think of John Muir. Ironically, John Muir's first visit to the park didn't occur until 4 years after the park was established. It only came to his attention, as it came to the attention of so many, because Jessie Benton Fremont saw the beauty of the valley, she appreciated its importance, and she began a passionate crusade to preserve it for the American people to enjoy. Jessie Benton Fremont was herself a gifted writer, and she used her skill to transform her husband's travel and exploration into popular narratives that were used by pioneers to guide their route west. After she came to California in 1849, Yosemite became her passion. She published many accounts of the valley and hosted scores of dignitaries to see its wonders. It was her deep love of Yosemite, coupled with her ceaseless agitation, her boundless energy, and her political connections in both parties that set in motion and drove the events that led to Congress passing, and President Abraham Lincoln signing, the Yosemite Grant Act 150 years ago. Remember, she did all of this in an age when women were expected to be seen and not heard. She set an example of leadership that gave inspiration and guidance to the next generation that ultimately produced the movement toward women's suffrage. The Yosemite Grant Act was revolutionary in its day. It was the first time in the Nation's history that land had been set aside, in the words of the Act, ``on the express condition that the premises shall be held for public use, resort, and recreation . . . for all time.'' Now, this act led ultimately to the creation of the National Park Service in 1916 and to the preservation of so many other landscapes for the American people to enjoy for their use and resort and recreation. The Norman and Plantagenet kings of old set aside vast tracts of land as their exclusive preserve, in which only a select few, with their blessing, could enjoy. The Yosemite grant was the very opposite of that. It set aside the most beautiful land in the Nation entirely for the people. The current name of the peak, Mammoth Peak, has absolutely no historical significance. The name was originally conferred on that peak because it was big. That is it. Furthermore, this naming will eliminate a constant source of confusion with Mammoth Mountain, a place that we have all heard of. That is the major ski resort just a few hours outside of Yosemite National Park. The Mammoth Peak we are referring to is inside Yosemite, and if you find that confusing, well, so too do many tourists. The fine point of the matter comes down to this: other persons who had lesser or comparable roles in establishing Yosemite are all commemorated by attaching their names to prominent features of the park--Horace Greeley, Carlton Watkins, Thomas Starr King, and U.S. Senators John Conness and Edward Baker. The name of the dynamic force that moved all of those people, Jessie Benton Fremont, is nowhere to be found on the names of features within the park. This is a century-and-a-half oversight that we can correct today by passing H.R. 1192. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires energy companies of all kinds to fund their own research and development programs, rather than continuing to require taxpayers to subsidize this activity to the tune of $3.1 billion. If we are serious about an all-of-the-above energy policy, we have got to stop using taxpayer money to pick winners and losers in the energy industry and start requiring every energy technology to compete on its own merits. For too long, we have suffered from the conceit that politicians can make better energy investments with taxpayer money than investors can with their own money. It is this conceit that has produced a long line of scandals, best illustrated by the Solyndra fiasco. This research doesn't even benefit the common good by placing these discoveries in the public domain. Any discoveries, although they are financed by the public, are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the private companies that received these public funds. Public costs, private benefit--that is called corporate welfare. That is what these energy subsidies amount to. My amendment protects taxpayers from being forced into paying the research and development budgets of these companies. It gets government out of the energy business and requires all energy companies and all energy technologies to compete equally on their own merits and with their own funds. Last year, when we debated similar amendments, we heard about all of the technological breakthroughs financed by the Federal Government, from railroads to the Internet, and we heard promises of future breakthroughs from this massive expenditure of Federal funds. Well, I freely recognize that, if you hand over billions of dollars of public subsidies to private business, those particular private businesses will do very well. I freely recognize that some of these dollars will produce breakthroughs that will then be owned by these private companies, and they will do extremely well. What the advocates of these subsidies fail to consider is the vast dilemma between the seen and the unseen, the immediate effects that you can clearly see and the unintended effects that cannot be seen. In this case, what we don't see clearly is the opportunity cost of these subsidies. Investors, using their own money, are very focused on making investments based on the highest economic return of these dollars. Politicians, using other people's money, make investment based on the highest political return of these dollars. This is the principal difference between Apple computer and Solyndra or between FedEx and the post office. These public subsidies, in effect, take dollars that would have naturally flowed into the most effective and promising technologies and diverts them into those that are politically favored. Dollar for dollar, this minimizes our energy potential, rather than maximizing it. For example, hydraulic fracking--it has revolutionized the fossil fuels industry. It offers us the very real potential of becoming energy independent. Well, after the 1973 oil embargo, the Federal Government began heavily subsidizing research on this technology. How did it work out? According to CNN: Between 1978 and 2000, the Federal Government spent about $1.5 billion on oil and gas production research, much of it on extracting fuel from shale, according to a 2001 report from the National Academy of Sciences, but the process remained expensive, and research faded as oil prices came back down in the 1980s. By the 1990s, private industry began to step back into the business with new technologies with lower costs, leading to today's boom. We were told last year that the little companies don't have the capital to develop their big ideas. Well, that is why there are private investors who can accurately evaluate those ideas and invest in the best of them. Government investment doesn't do that very well or efficiently, and it is time we had done with it. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I forgive my friend from Ohio for not being up on California history. The fact is California exists because it had the freedom to develop its vast natural resources. It is government intervention that has caused this economy to decline dramatically. Both of my friends miss the point. Government simply doesn't make these investments as wisely as private investors who are using their own money. Private investors invest to the highest economic value of a dollar; politicians invest to get the highest political return. The gentlewoman is correct in one respect: California is the home of Solyndra and many, many other failed government investments in recent years. It is the private investors who took up the research on hydraulic fracturing after government investments failed that have produced the technologies that are giving us the economic boom in States like North Dakota that actually have the freedom to develop their resources on public lands. It is simply a question of efficiency, a question of waste, and a question of right and wrong. Let's stop picking winners and losers in the marketplace and let the investors use their own money to make these research and development decisions. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I can forgive my colleague from Ohio for misstating California's history as she did earlier today, but I cannot excuse her for misstating the recent history that we were all quite familiar with. I would remind the gentlewoman that this House passed three appropriations bills over to the Senate funding the entire government last year, including a lot of things that we would like to reform, but we agreed to fund all of those spending with one exception. We asked for a 1-year delay in the train wreck that has become ObamaCare. I think the American people can see that that was a realistic request. Unfortunately, the Senate chose not to act. That is what caused the government to seize up and to shut down. Now, I also want to correct the gentlelady in her suggestion that, somehow, this is motivated because I don't like energy. I love energy, and I want to see it efficiently researched, and that is best done by the private sector using its own money, rather than politicians using other people's money to reward politically well-connected companies. I would simply ask the gentlewoman this: If these programs were all so worthwhile, why is it that the authorizing committees have not bothered to reauthorize them in a span of up to 35 years? I suggest that fact speaks for itself. Until these programs are properly reviewed and reauthorized, all I am asking is we don't keep increasing their budgets; we freeze them until the authorizing committees review them and reauthorize them. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, ever since 1835, the rules of the House have forbidden spending money except for purposes authorized by law. Yet last year, the eleven appropriations bills reported out of the House Appropriations Committee contained over $350 billion in spending on unauthorized programs. The rule against unauthorized spending cannot be enforced because it is always waived by the resolutions that bring these appropriations to the floor. The bill before us today contains $24 billion in such unauthorized spending for programs that have not been reviewed by the authorizing committees since as far back as 1980. That was Jimmy Carter's last year in office. Now, I am sure that some of these programs are valuable and worthy of taxpayer dollars, but surely, others are not. The fact that they have not been authorized in as much as 35 years ought to warn us to be at least a little more careful about continuing to fund them. Rather than reviewing our spending decisions and making tough choices about spending priorities, Congress simply rubberstamps these programs out of habit. It is no wonder we are so deeply in debt with so little to show for it. My amendment does not defund these unauthorized programs, as the House rules would require. It simply freezes spending on them at last year's levels. The cuts contained in this amendment total just $121 million, which is about 0.036 percent of the total spending in this bill. If year after year, the authorizing committees haven't found these programs worth the time to reauthorize, then maybe that is just nature's way of telling us they aren't worth the money we are shoveling at them either. It is the proper role of the House of Representatives to control the purse strings of our government. But we do a disservice to our constituents when we allow this kind of spending growth to occur on autopilot, absent any oversight or congressional authorization. I look forward to the day when Congress will again assert its constitutional prerogative to control Federal spending and enforce its own rules to prohibit spending blindly on unauthorized programs. However, in the meantime, adopting this amendment will merely freeze the spending in these unauthorized programs, shaving just 0.036 percent of this appropriation. By freezing that spending on unauthorized programs, I hope that will be a small symbolic step toward reclaiming the House's responsibility to act as a watchdog over the Treasury. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to honor one of our nation's greatest landmarks, Yosemite National Park. I am proud to be joined by: Rep. LaMalfa, Rep. Huffman, Rep. Garamendi, Rep. Thompson, Rep. Matsui, Rep. Bera, Rep. Cook, Rep. McNerney, Rep. Denham, Rep. George Miller, Rep. Speier, Rep. Swalwell, Rep. Costa, Rep. Honda, Rep. Eshoo, Rep. Lofgren, Rep. Farr, Rep. Valadao, Rep. Nunes, Rep. McCarthy, Rep. Capps, Rep. Brownley, Rep. Chu, Rep. Schiff, Rep. Caardenas, Rep. Sherman, Rep. Gary Miller, Rep. Napolitano, Rep. Waxman, Rep. Becerra, Rep. Negrete McLeod, Rep. Ruiz, Rep. Bass, Rep. Linda Saanchez, Rep. Royce, Rep. Roybal-Allard, Rep. Takano, Rep. Calvert, Rep. Hahn, Rep. Campbell, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, Rep. Lowenthal, Rep. Rohrabacher, Rep. Issa, Rep. Hunter, Rep. Vargas, Rep. Peters, and Rep. Davis. This year marks the 150th anniversary of President Lincoln's Yosemite Grant Act, creating, on June 30, 1864, the earliest parts of what would grow into the beautiful national park that we have today. In the midst of the Civil War, President Lincoln took the unprecedented step of setting aside this scenic tract of wilderness in central California for public use and recreation. The creation of this first public park, preserved for the enjoyment of the public, served as the catalyst for the creation of a vast system of lands that provide recreational opportunities across the country, including more than 400 national parks. Yosemite's development into a national park made it one of the nation's first travel destinations. Countless millions of Americans have visited the park over the last 150 years to enjoy the scenic beauty of nature. More than just idle viewing, Yosemite's heritage includes a dedication to camping and hiking that allows park visitors to immerse themselves in one of the American people's greatest treasures. Providing these various recreational activities, that so greatly enhance the visitor experience, is the lifeblood of the surrounding foothill communities. Today, Yosemite National Park receives over 4 million annual visitors. They come from around the world to see the beauty and majesty of our nation. This includes Yosemite's two Wild and Scenic Rivers, the Tuolumne and the Merced; over 800 miles of trails, including the renowned Pacific Crest Trail and the John Muir Trail; the awe-inspiring scenery created by the area's rich volcanic and glacial history; and the groves of Giant Sequoia trees. The park includes parts of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and contains several of the highest peaks in North America. Some of the world's most spectacular and unique geologic formations exist in Yosemite National Park, including renowned formations such as Half Dome, Sentinel Dome, El Capitan, Glacier Point and the Royal Arches. Where the rivers wind through these impressive geological formations, there are some of the world's most majestic waterfalls: Yosemite Falls, Snow Creek Falls, Sentinel Falls, Bridalveil Fall, Nevada Fall, and Waterwheel Falls, to name a few. Mr. Speaker, Yosemite National Park is truly one of our nation's greatest treasures and we ask all the Members of this body to join us in celebrating its past and committing to preserving its future.