Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chairman, this amendment strikes the NEPA exclusion for small hydroelectric projects. That's the principal point of the bill. As the Subcommittee on Water and Power has repeatedly been told, it is precisely this process that has doubled the cost of small hydro projects simply making them cost prohibitive. This is akin to having a full environmental review done when you build your home and then having to do it all over again when you want to install a microwave in your kitchen. One witness testified that installing 15 very small hydropower units on a nearby Bureau of Reclamation canal system would cost over $450,000, or $30,000 per unit, for additional NEPA reviews that would ultimately conclude that there is no environmental impact. That means the paperwork costs would be greater than the actual capital cost of the hydropower units. No one in his right mind would invest in a project with this kind of requirement. It simply makes no sense, and that's the primary reason conduit hydropower development is not happening. It is true that the Bureau of Reclamation instituted a new NEPA Categorical Exclusion for small hydroelectric projects back in September of 2012, but 6 months later, this new policy has resulted in precisely zero new projects moving forward. Even if projects were moving forward today, this is only an administrative change and could be changed back at any time. In addition, an expert witness who happens to be a litigator testified to our subcommittee that the current administrative process is full of legal holes that could be exploited by those wanting to stop these projects. Investors need certainty, and that requires a statutory and not an administrative fix. I appreciate and support the gentlelady's effort to allow the Bureau to consider units with 15 megawatts, but I would remind her that zero projects times 15 megawatts still equals zero electricity. Indeed, there are practically no projects in this range to begin with, which makes the amendment somewhat disingenuous. Even if there were, if the current regulatory scheme isn't allowing 5-megawatt units, it certainly won't allow 15-megawatt units. That's the problem. Mr. Tipton's bill provides an automatic exclusion from this duplicative and destructive NEPA requirement. The gentlelady's amendment takes it back out again. That's not constructive and it's not helpful. To assure us that one supports small hydropower but opposes the automatic exclusion in Mr. Tipton's bill reminds me of Leo Tolstoy's observation when he said: I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and all the while, I assure him and anyone who will listen that I am sympathetic for his plight and I am willing to do everything I can to help--except by getting off his back. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the so-called streamlining that the Bureau has pledged to do and has done has produced no new projects for reasons that were made very clear to our Subcommittee on Water and Power by numerous witnesses. NEPA is at the heart of the problem. As the chairman said, the Bureau of Reclamation operates 47,000 miles of pipelines and canals that have already undergone extensive environmental review. By installing small generators in the existing pipelines, we could add the equivalent generating capacity of major hydroelectric dams, meaning millions of dollars of new revenue to the government, millions of watts of new, clean, cheap electricity, and all the jobs these projects would produce. The gentlelady has said that she supports the objective and is willing to do everything that she can to help except by getting government out of the way. The Federal bureaucracy has made it cost prohibitive for people to install these small generators in these existing canals and pipelines. Rather, they force them to conduct crushingly expensive environmental reviews, navigate time-consuming bureaucratic mazes, pay exorbitant administrative fees, and risk the uncertainties of endless internal review and external litigation. These bureaucratic obstacles often cost more than the projects themselves and turn sensible, economic electricity projects into cost-prohibitive farces. As proposed to be amended, this bill requires the Bureau to categorically exclude the installation of these small, hydroelectric generators in existing facilities that have already undergone environmental review. It designates the central office within the Bureau to provide uniform guidance on processing applications. It establishes a sensible and streamlined process to determine development rights. And it ensures that installation of hydrogenerators will not disrupt existing water operations. Mr. Chairman, think about the implications just to farming as one example. Some irrigation districts are forced to use diesel generators to pump water to their fields. You put hydroelectric generators in existing canals and pipes, and they become virtually self-sustaining, while reducing reliance on other sources of electricity that do produce air emissions. It is truly mystifying that a Nation plagued by prolonged economic stagnation, chronic unemployment, and increasingly scarce and expensive electricity would adopt a willful and deliberate policy obstructing the construction of these inexpensive and innocuous generators in already- existing facilities. Even FERC, a bastion of regulatory excess, agrees that these studies are unnecessary when conducted on similar non- Federal facilities. I believe this bill is a model for the future. I hope that similar regulatory reforms will soon be extended to other Federal and non- Federal facilities.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Van Hollen recently pointed out that Democrats and Republicans both want to get rid of a range of tax loopholes but Democrats want to spend that money and Republicans want to lower the overall burden. That difference is very important. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. That's the principle reason why we're losing American jobs to nations with much lower taxes. As economist Arthur Laffer has warned, there's nothing more portable in this world than money. This policy might fit the left's ``eat the rich'' crusade, but the jobs it destroys are eating our middle class alive. We are sacrificing permanent, upwardly mobile, productive private sector jobs for makeshift subsidized ones that disappear the moment the money runs out. That is precisely the difference between FedEx and the post office or between Apple and Solyndra. And that's all the difference in the world.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Our fiscal problem can be summed up in just three numbers: 39, 37, and 64. Thirty-nine percent is the combined increase of inflation and population over the past 10 years. Thirty-seven percent is the increase in revenues. The third number is what's killing us: 64 percent is the increase in spending. It's nearly twice the rate of inflation and population growth. This has never been a revenue problem; it has always been a spending problem. Yet characteristic of other Democratic budgets, the Senate further accelerates spending while trying to chase it with $1 trillion of new taxes. And despite $1 trillion of new taxes, they can't ever balance their budget. And there's a reason: because it's a spending problem, and dogmatically trying to address it on the revenue side will simply drive more and more spending until we become Greece or Detroit.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, this debate over the budget reflects a great struggle between American families and their government over whether they or the government can best spend the money that they have earned. This budget bends that struggle slowly back in favor of those families by returning to them a little of the freedom to spend more of their own money and make more of their own decisions once again. The prosperity of American families is directly affected by government spending. Government cannot put a dollar into the economy that it first hasn't taken out of the economy. It's true we see the government job that's created when government puts that dollar back in. What we don't see as clearly is the job that's destroyed when government first pulls that dollar out. We see those lost jobs as chronic unemployment and a stagnating economy. Every billion dollars spent in Washington means taking $9 from an average family, either in direct taxes or in tax-driven price increases as businesses pass along their costs to consumers. That means that $1 trillion of new taxes that the Senate has proposed means $9,000 per family. Now we're told, don't worry, that's all paid by businesses. But businesses don't pay business taxes, they only collect them. They pass them on to us as consumers through higher prices, to us as employees through lower wages, or to us as investors through lower earnings, usually on our 401(k)s. A trillion dollars of deficit, as we ran up last year, really means $9,000 of future taxes for every family, robbing our children of their futures. It's about time we started thinking about these numbers in family- sized terms, because ultimately these numbers have a very real impact on families who are struggling to balance their own budgets, to set their own priorities and to look after their own needs. Now, these days, we've passed more than one-third of the cost of government on to our children, and we financed the remainder through a tax system in which politicians pick winners and losers through an appallingly unfair and distorted Tax Code. This budget calls for doing away with these tax distortions that reward some and punish others, distortions that shift capital away from economic expansion and into the service of political interests. This budget calls for flattening and lowering tax rates to assure that no American family pays more than one-quarter of its earnings to the Federal Government. Those nations that have adopted similar reforms have been rewarded with explosive economic growth. That means fairness for every American taxpayer and an economy unshackled from the burdens and political favoritism of our current system. In short, freedom works, and it's time that we put it back to work.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, the decline and fall of the Roman Empire offers us a sobering warning of a great nation that became overextended and war-weary abroad while it became utterly profligate and decadent at home. Its economy in shambles and its treasury bankrupt, the mightiest military power on Earth fell prey for backward hordes that had previously existed only on the fringes of civilization. Now, 3 years ago Admiral Mike Mullen warned our Nation that our national debt is our biggest national security threat. Now, that was 3 years ago when our debt stood at $13.5 trillion. Today we owe over $16.5 trillion. In other words, just since he issued this warning, we've added more to our country's debt than we did in our Nation's first 200 years of existence. No nation has ever taxed and borrowed and spent its way to prosperity, but many nations have taxed and borrowed and spent their way to economic ruin and bankruptcy, and history today is screaming this warning at us, that bankrupt nations 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 now coming into grave question. Now, just in the first 4 weeks of this year, Congress added more than a third of a trillion dollars of new spending to this already crushing burden. The fiscal cliff deal added $300 billion and the Hurricane Sandy bill another $50 billion, more than 90 percent of which had nothing to do with emergency relief for storm victims. Earlier this month, Congress simply did away with the debt limit altogether until mid-May. Two years ago, Congress passed the Budget Control Act that authorized the biggest single expansion of debt in our Nation's history; but Congress at least also agreed to reduce the projected deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, either through the supercommittee or, failing that, through automatic budget reductions called ``the sequester.'' Now, the sequester doesn't actually cut spending in any conventional sense of the word. After a decade in which spending has grown 64 percent, or nearly twice the rate of inflation and population growth, the sequester merely limits the increase next year to about one-half of one percent. I opposed that act, in part because the sequester was less than one- third of what officials at Standard & Poor's warned was the minimum deficit reduction necessary to preserve our Nation's AAA credit rating. I also objected to across-the-board cuts that treat our highest priorities the same as our lowest priorities and to the disproportionate impact that it would have on our defense budget. Those warnings fell on deaf ears at the time. But since then, twice the House has tried to correct these shortcomings with legislation to replace the worst of the defense cuts with long-term entitlement reform. Ultimately, that's the only way we're going to bring our fiscal crisis and its spiraling debt under control. Both measures died in the Senate; and after the November election, the likelihood of entitlement reform over the next several years is exceedingly remote, which means that however imperfect the sequester may be, it is at this moment in our history the only tool currently available to us to begin to point our Nation back toward fiscal solvency and away from the perilous fiscal path that we are now upon. We need to give administrators, especially the military command, the flexibility to set priorities and manage our money accordingly; but the overall sequester reductions must be maintained. A few months ago, the chief of sovereign debt for Standard & Poor's made this point: that although the sequester was insufficient to justify maintaining our AAA credit rating, it was at least a step in the right direction. He said: The sequester was an agreement that Congress made with itself, and we would view any step back from that agreement very negatively. Madam Speaker, when the history of our era is written, let it not be said that ours was a generation of locusts that consumed not only the wealth we inherited from our fathers and mothers, but also stripped bare the futures of our sons and daughters. Let us instead begin a new direction for our Nation, stepping back from the fiscal precipice that threatens to destroy our Nation from within.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the city of Rocklin in dedicating a portion of Interstate 80 in memory of Highway Patrol Officer Raymond Carpenter. This dedication is meant to pay tribute to Ray's life and his long service to our nation and our community. His great sense of duty and commitment came as no surprise to those who knew his story; in fact it was a testament to his humble upbringing. He was born in a small cabin and raised on the Sullivan Ranch in Auburn, where he learned the long hours and hard work of a ranch hand. This hardy experience taught him the uniquely American values of hard work and the freedom that self-reliance provides. That same tenacity and perseverance would lead him to later become an Alaskan homesteader while stationed there as a Technical Sergeant with the U.S. Air Force, building his own cabin on the frontier of our nation, like his forebears before him had in the rugged wilderness of northern California. It was to the blessing of his native state that Ray was called to return home in 1956, where his love of the outdoors, motorcycles, and his passion for service led him to the California Highway Patrol. His kind disposition made him friends easily, and he was always fast in offering a helping hand. Whether in his time with the Air Force or as a Highway Patrol Officer after returning to California, Ray had spent the better part of his life in service to his fellow Americans. It was in that service that Ray surrendered his life when he was shot and killed in the line of duty on February 17, 1970. Mr. Speaker, while Ray's life was cut short, we must celebrate his contributions, for as General Patton said ``it is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.'' I am proud today to rise to honor his memory and in grateful recognition of his many years of service and sacrifice.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, a family that earns $27,000 but spends $36,000 and has run up a credit card debt of $165,000 is obviously on the brink of financial ruin. Proportionally, that is exactly where our Federal Government is today. Now, if that family went to see a credit counselor, the first thing he's going to tell them is we've got to sit down and draw up a budget. Now, that family is going to have to make some very difficult choices. It may take several years to work its way back to solvency. But our Senate has not passed a budget in nearly 4 years, and our President has offered only entirely un-serious budgets that continue to spend recklessly and that never balance. This bill simply requires that if the President can't balance the budget this year, he tell us how long it will take and what needs to be done to do so. We would expect that from any family. We should demand it from our government.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the House is poised to pass H.R. 325 today. I respect the sincerity of its supporters, but I must firmly dissent. This bill accommodates spending at ruinous levels far beyond the limits set by the House budget. It sets a terrible precedent by abolishing the debt limit for nearly 4 months, giving an unlimited credit card to this administration. I think Members will be stunned by the borrowing that this moratorium makes possible. Certainly, thousands of dollars of new debt will be heaped on every household in America. House Republicans have passed two budget plans that put our Nation back on a path toward fiscal solvency. If the debt limit were increased within that trajectory at 2-month intervals, it would require only small and incremental reforms each time. That would both avert default now and the fiscal crisis that we are fast approaching. I believe that it is achievable and far preferable to the bill to be voted on today.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

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

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this rule brings a suspending package of more than $50 billion that is supposed to be for emergency repairs in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. That averages about $450 from every household in America. These families have a right to expect that this money will be used for genuine emergency relief, but it's not. According to the Congressional Budget Office, more than 90 percent of this money won't even be spent this year. That's not emergency relief. There is $16 billion to quintuple the size of the Community Development Block Grant program. That's the slush fund that pays for such dubious projects as doggy day care centers, and it doesn't even have to be spent in the hurricane area. Two billion dollars is for highway repairs anywhere in the country, including up to $20 million each for Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands that aren't even in the same ocean as Hurricane Sandy. I offered amendments to restrict funding for emergency relief this year. Future-year expenditures should be included in the normal appropriations process where they can be given scrutiny and be evaluated in relation to all of the other demands on spending. These amendments were refused. Worse, this rule overrides the House rules requiring spending offsets against unauthorized appropriations and, most telling of all, against mixing nonemergency funding in an emergency bill. A tragedy like Hurricane Sandy shouldn't be used as an excuse for a grab bag of spending having nothing to do with emergency relief. At the Rules Committee hearing, I was told, Well, you have to understand that that's just the way things are done around here. Mr. Speaker, Republicans were supposed to change the way things are done around here. Clearly, we have not.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chairman, it seems we've lost the battle over all of the non-emergency, non-Sandy spending in this measure. The question before us now is whether we're going to spend $17 billion in this bill--$50 billion when it's amended--without even pretending that we can pay for it. The gentleman from South Carolina's amendment proposes that we actually recognize that our government is facing a fiscal crisis of unprecedented dimensions and at least pay for the $17 billion in the Rogers bill. I don't like across-the-board cuts, which treat our highest priorities the same as our lowest priorities; but the Rules Committee disallowed the gentleman from South Carolina's specific offsets like repealing remaining TARP funds and ending bonuses to Federal employees who take transit to work. And the fact is if Members believe that a 1.6 percent cut to discretionary spending is draconian, they should be just as leery of a 1.6 percent increase in spending to pay for non- emergency, non-Sandy-related programs in the Rogers bill. In the last 10 years, inflation and population have grown 39 percent, our revenues have grown 37 percent, but our spending has grown 64 percent. In light of that, a 1.6 percent cut to pay for this bill, which we are assured is our highest priority, seems like a very modest measure.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the debate over the fiscal cliff has become so hyperbolic that I'm afraid we're losing touch with common sense. Contrary to many press accounts and many statements by Members, there is no bill before the Congress that proposes raising taxes on millionaires or anybody else. There is a law that takes effect on January 1 that will raise taxes on millionaires and small businesses filing as millionaires and on everybody else, and there is a bill to protect everybody else from that law, which is the issue before us today. The President says he wants to protect everybody except those greedy millionaires and billionaires. Well, that's precisely what this bill does, and yet he has vowed to veto it. The truth is he wants to sock everybody who is making over $200,000. Now, that includes 1.3 million small businesses filing under subchapter S. That's 84 percent of net small business income. That is precisely the income that they use to produce two-thirds of the jobs in our economy. The Congressional Budget Office warns us that Mr. Obama's ``eat the rich'' crusade will actually result in throwing 200,000 middle class families into unemployment. Ernst & Young estimates 700,000 lost jobs. House Republicans now have a choice in that we can try to save as many Americans from these ruinous tax increases as the President will permit or we can end up at an impasse that assures taxes go up on everyone. So let us pass this bill. If it doesn't work, then let's pass it at whatever level the President will agree to. It's not as if we haven't repeatedly warned him. Some of my conservative colleagues say that sparing some people these tax increases is tantamount to raising them on others. For a lifeguard who sees 10 swimmers drowning off his beach, if he can only save nine of them, that doesn't mean he has drowned the 10th one. And no lifeguard would be worth his pay if he said, Well, my principle is that nobody should drown off my beach; therefore, as a matter of principle, if I can't save them all, then I won't save any. As Americans watch as thousands and thousands of middle class jobs are sacrificed on the ideological altar of Obamanomics next year, I think this country will be a lot sadder and a lot wiser, but until then, let's save who we can.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the many contributions Timothy Holabird has made to Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, and Sierra counties located in northeastern California. Tim has combined experience and knowledge of the lands and people that define the region with a steadfast determination to help these rural communities. Federal agencies administer more than 80 percent of the land, and Tim has aggressively championed interests of people versus the seeming indifference and neglect of the bureaucracies. Bringing all parties together, establishing common goals and objectives, and actually solving problems has been his hallmark. As four fires ravaged the area this summer, Tim pursued the interests and concerns of local citizens to the point of his own physical exhaustion. He personally bridged the communication gap with agencies attacking the fires and the communities immediately threatened. In the devastating aftermath of the fires, Tim worked with all parties to restore and salvage. In particular, he has been relentless resolving the immediate, critical issue of thousands of acres of lost grazing land. Tim understands the appropriate role of government in land and resource management and has personally sacrificed to uphold the public's interests. Mr. Speaker, while it seems the aim of our government agencies is to restrict access and the productive use of our federal lands, Timothy Holabird remains a steadfast advocate for access and use by the very best stewards of this land--the local citizens.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, to understand the Federal budget mess and the so-called fiscal cliff, it's important to know three numbers: 39, 37, and 64. Thirty-nine percent is the combined growth of inflation and population over the last 10 years. Thirty-seven percent is the increase in revenues in the same period. That's despite the recession and the tax cuts. It's not quite keeping pace, but it's pretty close. Sixty- four percent is the number that is killing us. Sixty-four percent is the increase in Federal spending in that period. That's nearly twice the rate of inflation and population growth over the last 10 years. The spending side of the fiscal cliff is the so-called ``sequester,'' automatic cuts in Federal spending. To hear some tell it, it is the end of Western civilization as we know it. That's hardly the case. After a 64 percent increase in expenditures during this decade, the sequester doesn't actually cut spending at all. It simply limits spending growth next year to about a half of a percent. I opposed the budget deal that created the sequester last year because it fell woefully short of what Standard & Poor's clearly warned was necessary to preserve the Nation's AAA credit rating. Sadly, that fear was borne out, but now the sequester is all we have. It's true defense takes the brunt of it, but does our defense spending really need to be higher--inflation adjusted-- than it was at the height of the Vietnam War, when we faced down the Soviet Union and had 500,000 combat troops in the field? The sequester isn't stepping off a cliff; it is taking one step back from the cliff. The tax increases, however, are a very different matter. Without intervention, the Federal tax burden will balloon 21 percent at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve, taking somewhere between $2,000 and $3,000 from an average family. This summer, the House passed legislation to protect our Nation from such a calamity, but Mr. Obama vowed to veto it, and the Senate killed it. Instead, Mr. Obama tells us that he'll veto any plan that stops taxes from going up on all of those very wealthy folks making over $200,000, who he says need to pay their fair share. I suppose fairness is in the eye of the beholder. The top 1 percent earns 17 percent of all income and pays 37 percent of all income taxes, but that's beside the point. The fine point of it is that a lot of these very wealthy folks making over $200,000 aren't very wealthy, and they aren't even folks. They're 1.3 million struggling small businesses filing under subchapter S. Our small businesses produce two-thirds of the new jobs in our economy. So this battle is very much for the middle class. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Mr. Obama's tax increase on the so-called ``wealthy'' will actually throw 200,000 middle and working class families into unemployment. That's 200,000 lost jobs. By the way, that is the optimistic estimate. An independent analysis by Ernst & Young puts that figure closer to 700,000 lost jobs. That's because the President's taxes would slam 84 percent of the net small business income in the country. That's precisely the income that is used to support and expand our labor force. In their blind pursuit of an eat-the-rich ideology, Mr. Obama and his acolytes are imposing a policy that would utterly devastate hundreds of thousands of middle class families who depend upon the jobs that these small businesses provide. And for what? To wring enough money to fund Mr. Obama's spending spree for a grand total of 8 days. It's telling that three-fourths of the new taxes he's proposed would be used to finance the new spending that he's also proposed. We Republicans don't want to see taxes go up on anyone, period. We don't want to see this government willfully throw hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work by this policy. The President obviously believes that in the eleventh hour Republicans will have no choice but ultimately to protect as many taxpayers as we possibly can since the only alternative would be tax increases on everyone, including those job creators. He may be right, but that would mean a bleak and bitter New Year for all of those families who will watch helplessly as their jobs evaporate before their eyes. Let us pray that this President has a change of heart before setting this calamity in motion.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I never met Victor Dew, but I feel that I've gotten to know him since the day that he came home to Granite Bay to be laid to rest in a hero's grave in the midst of his family, his friends and neighbors, his community, and his comrades in arms. That day, I discovered that his next-door neighbor is a longtime acquaintance of mine. He had watched this young man grow up, and he was absolutely devastated. In his bitter sorrow, he represented the anguish of an entire community that had watched Victor Dew grow up to be an always good-natured, always helpful, always pleasant lad who everybody knew was destined to do great things. That same day, I met Victor Dew's younger brother, Kyle, and I think I got a fleeting glimpse of Vic in his little brother. Kyle was seated at a table with a group of his grade-school friends. When I offered my condolences, one of his friends said, We came to cheer him up and instead he's cheering us up. That day, I also met Victor Dew's parents, Patty and Tom Schumacher, whose intense pride in their son fused with inexpressible sorrow into a transcendent dignity that I cannot put into words. Lincoln perhaps came closest in his famous letter to Mrs. Bixby when he wrote of laying ``so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.'' I've gotten to know Victor's parents in the more than 2 years since that costly sacrifice. I see them at the funerals of other fallen heroes, offering comfort to other bereaved families in a way I think that only those who have gone through such a loss can truly understand. I frankly cannot begin to understand what they've gone through and continue to go through every day. Whenever I try to imagine myself in their shoes, my mind recoils. I can only marvel at the strength that they summon. Time does not heal all wounds. For these Gold Star families, every day is Memorial Day; and every day their grief is just as real as when the casualty officer appeared at their threshold. At a Gold Star dinner several years ago, I confided to our hosts that I still didn't know what to say to these families. She smiled and said, Just ask them about their sons. So let me tell you a little bit about what I know of Victor Dew. Everybody who knew him always began with the same thing: Vic was one of those sunny personalities who always lifted the spirits of everyone around them. They'd be feeling down, and Victor would lift them up. I have no doubt Kyle got that quality from his older brother. Victor attended Granite Bay High School where he played on the high school football team. His real passion, though, was martial arts, in which he ultimately achieved a double black belt in jujitsu. His jujitsu teacher, Clint LeMay, told the Los Angeles Times: When I met him, he was like a 30-year-old man walking around in a 13-year-old's body. He was wise beyond his years and knew how to deal with all kinds of people. In high school, he met a remarkable young lady by the name of Courtney Gold. They both went on to attend Sierra College, and that's when they began dating. Victor had great plans. He had grown up dreaming of becoming a marine. When he was 12 years old, he had hung a Marine Corps flag over his bed. Every morning after that, he woke up under that flag and the proud words emblazoned on it: Semper Fidelis. He steeped himself in military history. He was fully aware of the mortal dangers he would face; yet in the summer of 2009, he enthusiastically enlisted. When Courtney asked him why, he said, It's my dream. I feel like I need to do this. One of his comrades put it this way: Victor lived every day with a purpose like it was his last. He always had a joke to tell you or a way to make your day better. He would have tough days and instead of being negative, he would say, This is the kind of stuff I live for. Well, he had everything to live for. Before shipping out, he brought Courtney to one of his favorite places in the world, Disneyland, where he asked her to be his wife. They were to be married when he returned. In the Marines, he was offered a posting to a ceremonial position in the Presidential detail right here in Washington, but he turned it down. He believed his duty and his destiny was to keep the fight away from our shores, away from his family and his country; and so he chose combat even when he had been offered safe and honorable service at home. Instead of the prestigious Presidential detail he had been offered, Victor Dew chose to become one of the boys of 3/5: Third Battalion, Fifth Marine Regiment of the First Marine Division. He deployed to combat duty in Afghanistan on September 25, 2010. Less than 3 weeks later, on October 13, Lance Corporal Victor Dew, age 20, died from his wounds after his column was ambushed and an explosive device destroyed his vehicle. Lost with him were three other fallen heroes. The next week, a black hearse with the Marine Corps emblem brought him home to Granite Bay and to a hallowed grave. Courtney had already bought her wedding dress in anticipation of a far happier homecoming. The day before Victor's funeral, she put it on, she had a wedding photographer take her portrait, and she placed that photo in Victor's casket. And then he was laid to rest with all of the honors we accord to our heroes: posthumous medals and a promotion, full military honors, a flag given to the grieving mother on behalf of a grateful Nation. 777 days have passed since that awful day in Helmand province. In those 777 days, Victor Dew might have come safely home, he would have married Courtney Gold, they might have started a family by now, and he would be well embarked on a long and happy life and a promising career. As painful as it is to reflect on what might have been, it's important that we do so because in that pain is the measure of how much these young men gave up and how much their families grieve for them. They won't grow old to enjoy the blessings of liberty they died to secure for our country and for a country half a world away. A few years ago, I had the honor to visit members of the Third United States Infantry Old Guard, who tend the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers at Arlington Cemetery. Tourists will often watch them on warm spring days, meticulously dressed and painstakingly drilled, honoring the memory of these soldiers. Tourists don't often show up during hurricanes or in driving snowstorms or at 2 a.m. in sleet and hail, but the Old Guard does. They commit 2 years of their lives to this service, under the strictest of conditions. I asked a young sergeant, Why? Why do you do this? He said, Because, sir, we want to demonstrate to our fellow Americans that we will never forget. Victor Dew will not be forgotten. His family will see to that. His friends and neighbors will see to that. His marine brothers will see to that. And his country will see to that. Today, the United States House of Representatives considers legislation to name the post office in Victor Dew's hometown of Granite Bay in his honor, as a simple token of that commitment. All things mortal will pass. Someday this post office will be gone. Someday we will all be gone. But the selfless deeds and quiet patriotism of young men like Victor Dew are recorded, not in plaques and buildings and monuments, but, rather, in the eternal and indestructible archives of time itself. They will not tarnish or fade. They will stand for the ages as a testament to the value of liberty, the character of those who step forth to defend it, and as a most profound lesson of the true meaning of the words that Victor Dew awakened under from the time that he was 12 and that he now sleeps under for all eternity: Semper Fidelis.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, this is the story of a small group of families who long ago crossed a great ocean in search of religious tolerance and economic liberty; a land where people were free to enjoy the fruit of their own labor, to raise their children according to their own values, to practice their religious beliefs openly, to express their opinions without fear of retribution, to live their lives according to their own best judgment, and not according to the whims and mandates of the powerful. That is the story of the pilgrims who crossed the Atlantic Ocean on the Mayflower in 1620 seeking a better future in a free land for their descendants. It is the very same story of pilgrims like Baba Vasakha Singh and Baba Jawala Singh Thathian who founded the Stockton Gurdwara Sahib a century ago, and all those who have followed since. One hundred and fifty years ago, Abraham Lincoln said that although many people who were then in America could trace their families back to the American founding, many more had come since then, and could not. But, he said, ``when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that `We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,' and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are.'' There is no religion more attuned to the principles of the American Declaration of Independence than the Sikh religion. Both reject the idea of aristocracy and social class and instead judge every individual on his or her own merit and character. Both embrace the unique notion that we are born with equal claim to unalienable rights that come directly from the ``laws of nature and of nature's God,'' and not from government--rather, we create governments to protect these God-given rights and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these rights, it renounces its legitimacy. And both have inspired and animated the aspirations of those around the world seeking to reclaim, protect and enjoy these God-given rights. Individual liberty, personal responsibility, Constitutionally limited government--these are fundamental both to the Sikh Religion and to the American Founding. Today, we celebrate not only a century of Sikh immigration and integration into America, together, we celebrate the immortal inscription on the American Liberty Bell, to ``Proclaim Liberty Throughout ALL the Land, and Unto ALL the INHABITANTS Thereof.''

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, we are met here today on several items of important business. First, we are here to dedicate Col. Bud Anderson Way as a permanent and daily reminder to all of us how honored our community is to be the home of Bud Anderson. But more importantly, we name this street after Bud Anderson as a lesson to succeeding generations in matters of courage and sacrifice and duty and patriotism, in the hope and expectation that these generations will find inspiration and instruction in Col. Anderson's life story. He grew up in the little California town of Newcastle, in the 1920's and 30's--an age and a place where uniquely American values of individual responsibility, self-reliance, love of liberty, sense of duty, and love of country were very real, very strong, and inculcated into the very souls of America's greatest generation. When our nation, and all that it stood for, came under attack by foreign tyrants, that Greatest Generation knew instantly what was at stake and could see clearly what had to be done. President Roosevelt sounded the clarion call with these words: ``No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.'' The whole might and fury of the nation was committed to the cause, and from little towns like Newcastle, courageous young men like Bud Anderson stepped forward--indeed, rushed forward--to defend not only our country, but what Lincoln had called the last best hope of mankind. Today, it is hard to imagine a time when an attack on our country was met with the complete and total resolve of the entire nation--where every citizen set aside their daily lives and indeed devoted themselves to, ``absolute victory.'' Because people like Bud Anderson did just that, 3\1/2\ years later, the enemies of our nation had been utterly vanquished. Bud Anderson shot down more than 16 German fighters in 116 combat missions. But what he really did was far more important. At great personal risk, he saved countless American bomber crews, making it possible to deliver justice to what Churchill called the ``foulest and most soul-destroying tyranny in the history of the human race,'' and ultimately to fulfill the Liberty Bell's proud mandate from Leviticus: ``to proclaim liberty throughout all the land and unto all the inhabitants thereof.'' That's why we're really here. Not just to honor Bud Anderson. Lincoln was right that there's no way that we can add or detract from the honor that his deeds already earned him. We're really here because we want to know that in this nation there once existed an American spirit that compelled us to recognize moral imperatives, to destroy absolute evil with absolute victory, and to celebrate American exceptionalism without reservation or hesitation. We have in Bud Anderson a great example of these virtues, a great reminder that they are real, and a great teacher from whom we can recover these virtues in a world that is once again piled high with difficulties at home and abroad. That's why we're naming this road in his honor--because we are desperately searching for the qualities that defined his deeds and his times and we have found in him a guide back to America's greatness. Every person who travels this road, and who reflects on the story of Bud Anderson and his times, who learns that story and learns it well, will know that it is a road that can take us to better and brighter days ahead.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Dr. Tracy Vallier. Dr. Vallier's career as a Professor of Geology at Indiana State University, Whitman College, Lewis-Clark State College, and Iowa State University; as well as his experience with Scripps Institute of Oceanography, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories and the US Geological Survey are all worthy of note. He has doubtlessly passed his passion and hard-earned knowledge on to innumerable students and colleagues. Dr. Vallier has spent the last 50 years working to explore, document and teach the geography and geology of the Hells Canyon. The canyon, which follows the route of the Snake River through Idaho and Oregon, is the deepest gorge in North America: at 7,993 feet deep, it dwarfs the Grand Canyon by nearly 2,000 feet. Hells Canyon is a breathtaking, nearly-inaccessible American treasure that has been over 300 million years in the making, during which numerous geological processes ranging from volcanic uprisings, to the slow carving of the Snake River to cataclysmic glacial floods have provided a landscape filled with some of the most complex and intertwined geology in North America. Dr. Vallier has dedicated the last half-century to understanding this geologic masterpiece. His colleagues tell us that he has probably explored more geography of Hells Canyon than any person alive. In his 50 years working in the Canyon, Dr. Vallier has led to an understanding of not only the geologic history of the Canyon, but also of the regional tectonics of the Pacific Northwest. He has shared this knowledge of the Canyon's history, native sites, flora and fauna, and ecology to colleagues, students, and almost everyone he has met. Dr. Vallier is a born teacher and his love and knowledge of the Canyon is passed on to students and strangers alike. John Wesley Powell, who is best known for his pioneering study of the Grand Canyon, said about his explorations: ``We have an unknown distance yet to run, an unknown river to explore. What falls there are, we know not; what rocks beset the channel, we know not; what walls ride over the river, we know not. Ah, well! We may conjecture many things.'' Without Powell, indeed we would have been left for a long time with only conjecture as our guide to the Grand Canyon. In the same way Mr. Speaker, without Dr. Tracy Vallier, we would remain in the dark about the wonders of Hells Canyon. As Dr. Vallier continues his work in the Canyon today, it is my privilege to rise in recognition of his many achievements and contributions to our nation.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this bill ends the title XVII loan guarantees that produced Solyndra and so many other alternate energy scams that cost Americans hundreds of millions of dollars while the politically connected perpetrators of these scams walked away wealthy men and women. But this measure does still put taxpayers on the hook to loan out billions of dollars more to at least 50 additional shady, alternate energy schemes that had been submitted under the same title prior to January 1. So there will be more Solyndras under this bill. I'd offered an amendment to pull the plug on the applications, but I was told, Don't bother; the Rules Committee won't allow the amendment to be brought to the floor. So I support the bill, but I do agree with my friend from Ohio that the title, ``No More Solyndras Act,'' is a bit misleading. I would suggest an alternative, the ``50 More Solyndras and Then We'll Stop Wasting Your Money, Really, We Promise, Act.''

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I want to thank the chairman for yielding to a contrary point of view. Mr. Speaker, FISA allows the government to target foreign nationals and to intercept their communications, even those with American citizens, without a warrant, as required by the Fourth Amendment. Now, we're told don't worry. The law requires that any irrelevant information collected in this manner be disregarded. Well, here is the problem. The enforcement of this provision is, itself, shrouded in secrecy, making the potential for abuse substantial and any remedy unlikely. Secret courts and warrantless surveillance are not compatible with a free society or the English common law or the American Constitution. We are told FISA is necessary to stop terrorist plots and that this protection trumps privacy or due process concerns. Well, Ben Franklin answered that argument years ago when he warned us that those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. In fact, America's security is far better assured as a thriving free society in a world that respects her strengths and fears her just vengeance.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. As I listened to my colleague from Santa Barbara, I was reflecting on the fact that, during that same period, I represented the same area of Santa Barbara. I was in the State senate for 8 years. So I would remind the gentlelady that less than 4 years ago the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution asking for more offshore development of the Santa Barbara area, so dependent is the region's economy on that enterprise. Mr. Chairman, that speaks volumes, I think, about where the American people stand today as well. America's energy crisis is not because of any shortage of American energy. Our Nation is blessed with vast reserves of petroleum, natural gas, coal, hydroelectricity, and uranium that dwarf those of any other nation, and they should make us the most prosperous and energy- independent Nation in the world. The real energy crisis is here in Washington--some would say right here in this Chamber--where our government, in thrall to the green left, continues to thwart the development of American resources. We have seen this policy time and time again as the President has blocked the Keystone pipeline, waged war on coal, and thwarted offshore exploration and development, which is a problem that this bill now addresses. To add hypocrisy to injury, while blocking American petroleum development, many of these politicians exhort the Saudis and Brazilians to increase their production. Enough is enough. Our Nation is at a crossroads. We can choose either a future of government-created energy shortages or a future of jobs, prosperity and abundance produced by American enterprise. That is the issue before us today, and that is one of the issues that will be before the American people in November.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the completion and opening of the Gene Upshaw Memorial Tahoe Forest Cancer Center in Truckee, California. Led by Medical Director Laurence Heifetz, MD, FACP, and Medical Oncologist Hematologist Ahrin Koppel, MD, the Tahoe Cancer Center first opened its doors in 2006 with a mission of providing quality care for cancer patients in the Tahoe region. The Center's services are vast and include: medical evaluation, examination, diagnosis and treatment; chemotherapy infusion and blood product administration; pharmacy, laboratory and diagnostic imaging services; a psychosocial services program with wellness, support groups, nutritional counseling and rehabilitation therapies; professional and caring staff; and Financial Counseling for patients. And for the first time in the Truckee-Tahoe area, the expanded Center will also house radiation oncology services as well. In coordination with the University of California Davis Cancer Care Network, the Tahoe Forest Cancer will provide world class treatment and care for cancer patients in northeastern California and Nevada. The Center will connect patients not just to the best in modern treatments and equipment, but to some of the most renowned medical professionals in our state. I am certain that both these patients and their families will reap the dividends of this facility for decades to come, often in the hour of their greatest need. Mr. Speaker, the foundation of our nation's strength has always been found in our local communities. Neighbors who willingly band together and pool their resources are remarkably skilled at employing those resources to their most useful and productive ends. They do so because they have a vested stake in the future of their towns and cities, and they understand the burdens borne to finance that future because they are the ones who bear them. I can think of no finer example of this remarkable and unique characteristic of our shared heritage than the opening of the Gene Upshaw Memorial Tahoe Forest Cancer Center and I am proud to rise today in celebration of this auspicious occasion.