Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his heroic work on this issue. Mr. Chairman, history walks with us as we debate this budget. History offers us not a single example of a nation that has ever spent and borrowed and taxed its way to prosperity, not one. But it offers us many, many examples of nations that have spent and borrowed and taxed their way to economic ruin and bankruptcy. And history is screaming this warning at us: that nations that bankrupt themselves aren't around very long because before you can provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare, you have to be able to pay for it, and the ability of our Nation to do so is now in grave danger. Yesterday, the President attacked this budget because he says it lowers taxes on the rich while raising Medicare costs for seniors. In fact, this budget ends many of the loopholes that have allowed some of the wealthy to pay less than their fair share of taxes, while it lowers the overall rate for those who have paid more. And since 82 percent of small business income is affected, economists tell us that the tax relief provided by this plan will produce a million new jobs next year. I say to the gentleman from Maryland, that's the healthy way to produce new revenue. The President apparently believes that by taking more money from small businesses, somehow they will create more jobs. That is the economic folly that misguides this administration. As my friends to my left know, Medicare and Medicaid will collapse if we continue business as usual. This budget saves those systems by putting them on a sound financial foundation. It reverses the growing trend of doctors refusing to treat Medicare patients, and it assures future seniors a far wider choice of physicians and plans than is available today. This budget brings Federal spending back under control, and it places our Nation on a path so that when my children retire, their retirement systems will be safe and secure and their Nation will be debt free and prosperous.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, when the President ordered the attack on Libya without congressional authorization, he crossed a very bright constitutional line that he, himself, recognized in 2007 when he told the Boston Globe, ``The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the Nation.'' The reason the American Founders reserved the question of war to the Congress was that they wanted to assure that so momentous a decision could not be made by a single individual. They had watched European kings plunge their nations into bloody and debilitating wars over centuries, and they wanted to avoid that terrible fate for the American Republic. The most fatal and consequential decision a Nation can make is to go to war, and the American Founders wanted that decision made by all the representatives of the people after careful deliberation. Only when Congress has made that fateful decision does it fall to the President as Commander in Chief to command our Armed Forces in that war. The authors of the Constitution were explicit on this point. In Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton drew a sharp distinction between the American President's authority as Commander in Chief, which he said ``would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces'' and that of the British king who could actually declare war. To contend that the President has the legal authority to commit an act of war without congressional approval requires ignoring every word the Constitution's authors said on this subject--and they said quite a lot. There seems to be a widespread misconception that under the War Powers Act the President may order any attack on any country he wants for 60 days without congressional approval. That is completely false. The War Powers Act is clear and unambiguous: The President may only order our Armed Forces into hostilities under three very specific conditions. Quoting directly from the act: ``One, a declaration of war; two, specific statutory authorization; or, three, a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.'' Only if one of these conditions is present can the President then invoke the War Powers Act. None are present, none are alleged to have been present, and, thus, the President is in direct violation of that act. The United Nations Participation Act requires specific congressional authorization before American forces are ordered into hostilities in United Nations actions. The North Atlantic Treaty clearly requires troops under NATO command to be deployed in accordance with their own country's constitutional provisions. The War Powers Act specifically forbids inferring from any treaty the power to order American forces into hostilities without specific congressional authorization. The only conclusion we can make is that this was an illegal and unconstitutional act of the highest significance. The President has implied that he didn't have the time for congressional authorization to avert a humanitarian disaster in Libya. Well, he had plenty of time to get a resolution from the United Nations, and I would remind him that just a day after the unprovoked bombing of Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt appeared in this very Chamber to request and receive congressional authorization. Some have said that the President can do whatever he wishes and that Congress' authority is limited to cutting off funds. The war is not a one-sided act that can be turned on and off with congressional funding. Once any Nation commits an act of war against another, from that moment on it is at war. It is inextricably embroiled and entangled with an aggrieved and belligerent party that has casus belli to prosecute hostilities regardless of what Congress then decides. Finally, I've heard it said, well, we did the same thing in Kosovo. If that is the case, then shame on the Congress that tolerated it, and shame on us if we allow this act to stand unchallenged any longer. This matter strikes at the heart of our Constitution. If this act is allowed to stand, it will fundamentally change the entire character of the legislative and executive functions on the most momentous decision that any Nation can make. It will take us down a dark and bloody road that the American Founders fought so hard to avoid.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Robert Myers of Roseville, California. Robert was born in Ohio in 1937 and as a young child moved with his family to Los Angeles where he was raised. At age 17, Robert enlisted in the United States Air Force and after completing his training as an aircraft mechanic, deployed overseas to Europe. Robert's post was the front lines of the Cold War, where he was charged with guarding and maintaining strategic nuclear assets. Robert left the service in 1962 rising to the position of Crew Chief to USAF General Bernard Schriever, who oversaw the U.S. strategic missile program and over 40% of the Air Force budget. After leaving the armed forces, Robert continued a career of service to his community as a firefighter with the Torrance Fire Department in Torrance, California, a post he held to his retirement in 1993. Following his long career of public service, Robert and his wife, Gwen, moved to Sun City in Roseville, California. It is doubtless that by the time Robert moved to Roseville he had already provided more service to this country than could reasonably be expected, both through his service in the United States Air Force and the Torrance Fire Department, but he wasn't finished yet. While living in Sun City, Robert became one of the founders of the Tea Party group there: leading book clubs, discussions and activities devoted to educating citizens and advocating for the founding principles of our country. Mr. Speaker, it is the patriotism of men like Robert that will ultimately lead to the salvation of our country from our current trials, and I believe that his contributions to this fight at home are every bit as valuable and important as the years he spent guarding nuclear weapons at the height of the Cold War. Robert is survived by his wife, Gwen, his four children: Christine, Steven, Richard and Elizabeth; and his three grandchildren: Alice, Oscar and Sophia. The quality of Robert's dedicated life of service is only matched by the remarkable family he supported and raised as a loving husband, father and grandfather. Mr. Speaker, patriots such as Robert Myers have ensured the safety and success of our union from its earliest days to the present time, and I have no doubt that his life has served to further that cause. It is with a grateful and humbled heart that I rise today to honor his memory and thank him for his many years of service.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Two years ago, the President told us that we were all to blame for the housing bubble and the financial crisis that followed. No, we're not. Those families who passed up the get-rich-quick real estate seminars and who turned down the loans that they couldn't afford, or who settled for a smaller home, or who rented because that's all they could afford, they're not to blame. And they shouldn't be left holding the bag. Ninety-one percent of Americans are making their mortgage payments not only because it's the right thing to do, but because they know that the sooner the market corrects itself the sooner their homes will begin to appreciate once again. By propping up bad loans and by undermining responsible homeowners, our government's extending the agony and postponing the day when the market stabilizes and home buyers can safely reenter the housing market.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Greg Seghezzi of Grass Valley, California. Greg was well-known in the Grass Valley community, and it would be hard to find many who didn't know and care for him. He was a member of the Grass Valley Rotary Club, the Chamber of Commerce and an active member of the men's ministry at Twin Cities Church. Greg had an uncompromising and uncommon work ethic: having owned a wine store and catering business as well as working as a realtor in Nevada County. He was the quintessential example of the American entrepreneur and innovator. Going far beyond being a successful businessman, Greg was also a dedicated servant to his community: donating food, supplies and hundreds of hours in the kitchen cooking for local fundraisers and special events. For all of his success in the public arena, the single greatest joy in Greg's life was his family. Greg and Angie, his wife of 26 years, raised four outstanding children: Antonio, Gianna, Roman and Dominica. Whether it was driving across the state chasing volleyball matches and diving meets, or providing a strong and guiding example of hard work and fine values, Greg's largest investment of his time and energy went to loving and caring for his family in every way possible. Mr. Speaker, men like Greg Seghezzi don't quickly fade from memory, nor can they ever be replaced. Whether through his professional life, or his personal dedication to his family and community, Greg touched many lives in our community; lives that he undoubtedly changed for the better and it is my honor to rise in his memory today.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Shawn Webb of Meadow Valley, California. Shawn was born on May 7, 1973 in San Diego, California and was raised in Descanso. He grew up in the beauty of the California wilderness. Shawn rode his dirt bike in the desert and learned to work on hotrods and tractors. Shawn's lifelong dream was to serve as a police officer and after graduating from Mountain Empire High school he entered the police academy. Shawn graduated from the academy in 1995 and began his lengthy service, first as a Reserve Officer and then as a Sworn Officer, to the residents of El Cajon, California as a member of the El Cajon Police Department. It was also in 1995 that Shawn married the love of his life, Chrissy, with whom he had grown up in Descanso. The couple were blessed with their first daughter Courtney that same year, followed two years later by the birth of their second daughter, Samantha. In 2008 the family relocated to Plumas County, California, where Shawn joined the Sherriff's Department as a deputy and serving with a kindness, compassion and purpose that affected so many on a level that is impossible to quantify, and hard to even imagine. In the course of providing this outstanding service, Shawn earned multiple citations and awards including the Life Saving Award, the Meritorious Unit Citation, nine commendations for work with vehicle theft and twice being named the Officer or the Month. Shawn not only fulfilled his dream to become a police officer, but distinguished himself as one of the finest to bear that title. In 2009, Shawn was diagnosed with highly-aggressive brain cancer and he began what would be a long, hard battle with that disease. Mr. Speaker, Shawn was a dedicated public servant, but he was first- and-foremost a loving father and husband and a fierce friend. Those who knew Shawn adored him for his generous, considerate nature and robust sense of humor. It was impossible not to take notice of his stature as we watched the community rally behind him and his family, doing all they could to help the man they had come to love. Sadly, last week Shawn's long battle with cancer came to a close. He leaves behind his wife of almost sixteen years, his two teenage daughters and too many friends to count. William Faulkner once said he refused to accept the concept of death ``because [man] has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance.'' Faulkner continued, saying that it is our duty to ensure this endurance by reminding men of ``the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past.'' Mr. Speaker, it is doubtless that Shawn Webb's story is one that is filled with all of the virtues that Faulkner described. It is my honor to rise today in his remembrance, and to commit to the record of history Shawn's legacy of love, service and honor.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden). (Mr. WALDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from California is absolutely right. These Travel Management Rules are highly exclusionary. They severely limit the public's access to the public's own land with devastating consequences for the local economies of every mountain town that's affected. As Butte County Supervisor Bill Connelly writes, ``the roads within the National Forests are used by thousands of residents and visitors for transportation and recreation. These activities generate revenue for our rural communities which are critical for their survival.'' This is not a small matter. The Forest Service now controls 193 million acres within our Nation, a land area the size of Texas. In recent years, the Forest Service has utterly reversed the vision of its founder, Gifford Pinchot, ``to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people in the long run.'' Instead, we confront an increasingly elitist and exclusionary attitude that is vividly illustrated by the draconian restrictions in the forest travel management plan. It bears far more resemblance to the public's exclusion from the royal forests under King John than to an agency that is supposed to encourage, welcome, facilitate, and maximize the people's use of our national forests. These amendments restore the inclusionary vision of Gifford Pinchot by restoring the public's access to the public's land.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I don't need anywhere close to 5 minutes. I simply want to emphasize that the gentleman is correct, that the local people should decide that issue, and they have. In one local election after another, when this has been the deciding question, the voters themselves have said it is insanity, at a time when we can't guarantee enough electricity to keep their air conditioners running or the refrigerators running, to tear down the generating capacity equivalent to enough for 150,000 residents and 155 megawatts of electricity. The Siskiyou Board of Supervisors, elected by the people of the region, has taken a very strong stand in opposition to the removal of the dams. And to the gentleman from California, I too am concerned about the salmon. That's why the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery, which is producing 5 million salmon smolt a year, 17,000 of which return as fully grown salmon to spawn, is so critical. And why they would want to tear that out, along with the dams, is absolutely beyond me and beyond the people of the region who have voted repeatedly on this issue.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday, the appropriations committee leadership supported my amendment No. 297 to cancel $2 million that would be used to consider destroying four perfectly good hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River that are generating 155 megawatts of the cleanest, cheapest, and most reliable electricity on the planet--enough to power over 150,000 homes. Amendment No. 296 is the companion measure. It forbids the Bureau to redirect its remaining funds for this purpose. Let me emphasize: Congress never authorized this study. Congress never authorized the Klamath settlement. The Bureau of Reclamation is moving forward with it anyway. At a time when skyrocketing electricity prices threaten our economy and when acute capacity shortages threaten the reliability of our grid, destroying 155 megawatts of clean, cheap, and reliable hydroelectricity is simply insane. We're told this is to save the salmon, but the proposal also includes destroying the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery, which is producing 5 million salmon smolt each year, 17,000 of which return to the Klamath as fully grown adults in order to spawn. The Bureau is conducting this study without congressional authorization, and the language in this amendment is essential in order to implement the reduction that the House approved on Tuesday. I thank the appropriations leadership for their support on Tuesday and ask that the House adopt the implementing language. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger). (Mr. HERGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, in closing, the gentleman from Arizona is disingenuous when he says that we didn't know this was about the Klamath when we adopted the funding reduction on Tuesday. That was the entire context of the debate. I mentioned it over and over again. It's not true that this is somehow a surprise if the gentleman was listening. As to the claim that this is an agreement that has been agreed to by all of the political insiders in the area, let me assure the gentleman from California that it is opposed by the overwhelming majority of voters as tested in several local elections, including the formal opposition to the dam removal by the Siskiyou border supervisors elected by the people of the region.

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman. And I would simply say in response that the gentleman in opposition forgets two important points. Number one, the additional costs are being forced on those private dam operators by the government. It is about time that we recognize that it is the government imposing these regulations that's driving up these costs. And I would remind him he also forgets the enormous replacement costs. The power coming off those dams is the cheapest and cleanest on the planet. To replace that power is going to cost many, many times the costs currently borne by the ratepayers for the cheap hydroelectricity those dams produce.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is a government-established, government-financed, so-called private nonprofit set up to act as a conduit to funnel public dollars to private environmental advocacy groups. The authorization for these grants has expired. Let me repeat that. There is no congressional authorization for this program, and yet the money just keeps rolling on. If we are actually serious about spending taxpayer money as carefully as they spend what they've got left after they've paid their taxes, then we ought to start by insisting that if Congress has not authorized a program, it should not be funded. If we ignore this principle, then why do we have any committees other than the Appropriations Committee? When Ronald Reagan very reluctantly signed the original legislation, NFWF's budget was $100,000. It has grown to $7.5 million, 75-fold. Nor was Reagan's signing statement exactly a ringing endorsement. Here is what he said: ``I must convey my serious reservations about the bill. The statements in the bill to the effect that the foundation shall be a nonprofit, charitable corporation and that it shall not be an agency or establishment of the United States are contradicted by the facts. Establishment of the foundation under the terms of the bill is an unwise and dangerous precedent.'' Well, Reagan had ``serious reservations'' about an unwise and dangerous precedent. Reagan's ``serious reservations'' were well founded, and, at the very least, there ought to be a full congressional review of this program and a decision made to reauthorize it before we throw more money at it, money, by the way, if you haven't checked the newspapers recently, that we don't have. In this particular case, these are public dollars being funneled to private concerns, many of which have a disconcerting habit of then turning around and suing the government, that is, suing taxpayers over environmental issues. As we all know, all funds are fungible. So, in essence, through this agency, we are using taxpayer money to give to groups to sue taxpayers. Not all of these private foundations are even domestic. These grants have gone to such foreign groups as the Prakratic Society of India, the Centre for Dolphin Studies of Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in Central Mozambique, and to the San Lorenzo Public Outreach Program in Panama. Mr. Chairman, with our Nation facing the worst peacetime fiscal crisis in our history, do we really need to continue these expenditures? And shouldn't we at least review the program and renew the authorization before we throw more money at it? I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the Tropical Forest Conservation Act is a $20 million-a-year program, and perhaps one of the most outrageous of any that I have seen so far. It calls into question any of the claims that we can't possibly spare a dollar from this section of the budget. Under this program, the United States, staggering under the biggest peacetime debt in the Nation's history, a debt so large that the United States of America would now be denied entry into the European Union because of our excessive debt, nevertheless is paying down the debts of developing countries if they do restoration and conservation work in their own rainforests. Really? The deficit this year alone puts an average family of four on the hook for about $20,000 of additional debt that they must repay through their future taxes just as surely as if it appeared on their credit card, and part of that debt will be used to pay down the debt of developing countries if they develop their rainforests. Now, of course if they cut down their rainforests to grow corn, they can get American ethanol subsidies, but that's a subject for another day. History is screaming this warning at us, that countries that bankrupt themselves aren't around very long. Before we pay down the debt of developing countries, I would like to make this modest suggestion: perhaps we ought to tend to our own. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this is a poster child for I guess what could best be described as ``Greens Gone Wild.'' As part of the so- called Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, it is proposed to use taxpayer funds to tear down four perfectly good hydroelectric dams on the Klamath that are producing 155 megawatts of the cleanest, cheapest electricity on the planet--that's enough to power over 150,000 homes--because, we're told, of catastrophic declines in salmon. When I suggested building a salmon hatchery instead, I was informed there already is one. It produces 5 million salmon smolt each year, 17,000 of which return to that river as fully grown adults to spawn, but they are deliberately ignored in the population counts. To add insult to insanity, as they tear down these dams in the name of saving the salmon, they are actually tearing down the fish hatchery that actually is saving the salmon. This amendment targets the study that is underway to do so. A policy that is as manifestly insane as this should not require $2 million of additional funding. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment saves $247 million by relieving taxpayers of having to subsidize solar energy research and development. I am tempted to point out that solar power is not a new technology. Photovoltaic electricity generation was invented by Edmond Becquerel in 1836. That was 175 years ago. And in 175 years of continuing research and development and technological advancement, we have not yet been able to invent a more expensive way of generating electricity. Yet we're perfectly comfortable telling our constituents that we're taking another $250 million from their families to throw at this 175-year-old technology for no particular reason other than it makes us feel good. I'm also tempted to point out that not only is this the most expensive way that we have ever invented to generate electricity, but it also adds nothing--I repeat, nothing--to our baseline power. Our electricity systems operate on an integrated grid, meaning that we have to constantly match the power going onto the grid with the power coming off the grid. And since there is no way to tell when a cloud passing over a solar array will immediately drop the output to zero, we have to construct an equal amount of reliable conventional power to back up that solar power. In other words, for every kilowatt of solar power we add to the grid, we also have to pay to add an additional kilowatt of backup power. But the principal objection I have is this: This technology was truly on the verge of a breakthrough. After 175 years, investors would be tripping over themselves to get a piece of the action. If they are, there's no need to subsidize it. And if they're not, we have no right to force American taxpayers to make investments that no investor in his right mind would make. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, last year I voted to extend the Patriot Act for 1 year. I regret that vote and was glad to have been able to correct it, although I'm pained that the House voted otherwise yesterday. During this past year, I have become convinced that the provisions of the so-called Patriot Act are an affront to the Bill of Rights and a serious threat to our fundamental liberty as Americans. The Fourth Amendment arises from the abuses of the British Crown that allowed roving searches by revenue agents under the guise of what were called ``writs of assistance'' or ``general warrants.'' Instead of following specific allegations against specific individuals, the Crown's revenue agents were given free rein to search indiscriminately. In 1761, the famous colonial leader James Otis challenged these writs, arguing that ``a man's house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege.'' Now 250 years later, the Patriot Act restores these roving searches. In the audience that day in 1761 was a 25-year-old lawyer named John Adams. He would later recall: ``Every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance. Then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there, the child, `Independence' was born.'' The American Founders responded with the Fourth Amendment. It provides that before the government can invade a person's privacy the executive branch must present sworn testimony to an independent judiciary that a crime has occurred and that there is reason to believe that an individual should be searched for evidence of the crime, and then specify the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The John Doe roving wiretaps provided under this bill are a clear breach of this crystal-clear provision. The entire point of having an open and independent judiciary is so that abuses of power can be quickly identified by the public and corrected. The very structure of this law prevents that from occurring. I also object to the lone wolf provision of the act that allows a person who's not acting in concert with a foreign power to be treated as if they were. This malignant fiction utterly blurs the critical distinction between a private person protected under our Constitution and an enemy combatant acting as an agent of a foreign power. My chief of staff, Igor Birman, was born in Moscow. His family emigrated to America when he was 14. He tells of the days leading up to their long-awaited departure. His father had technical expertise, and the authorities were desperate to find some pretense to cancel the family's exit visa. A week before they departed for America, the family returned home to find that the Soviet authorities had turned their apartment upside down looking for anything that could be used to block their emigration. This was not the result of suspected criminal activity but, rather, the same kind of open-ended search the Fourth Amendment protects us against. His younger brother was terrified and hysterical. His mother calmed the little boy by saying, Don't worry, don't worry. We're leaving in a few days for America. This will never happen to us there. Our country is threatened by foreign governments and multinational terrorist groups which are actively trying to do us harm, backed by a fifth column within our own borders. But we have faced far more powerful governments and far better organized networks of spies and saboteurs in the past without having to shred our Bill of Rights. The freedom that our Constitution protects is the source of our economic prosperity, our moral authority, and our martial strength. It is also the ultimate bulwark against authoritarianism. Abraham Lincoln was right: No transatlantic military giant, let alone some fanatical terrorist group, can ever ``step across the ocean and crush us at a blow.'' And no foreign power can destroy our Constitution. Only we can do that. As Lincoln said: ``As a Nation of free men, we are destined to live forever, or die by suicide.''

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know I speak for all of my Republican colleagues on the Water and Power Subcommittee when I say that we are excited and eager to undertake the mission outlined in House Resolution 72 to identify the Federal regulations in this field that are impeding job creation and that are slowing the economy. The only problem we have got is deciding where to start. A generation ago, the principal objective of our water and power policy was to create an abundance of both. It was an era when vast reservoirs and hydroelectric facilities produced a cornucopia of clean and plentiful water and electricity, on a scale so vast that many communities didn't even bother to measure the stuff. But that objective of abundance has been abandoned in favor of the rationing of shortages that have been caused by government. The result is increasingly scarce and expensive water and power that now undermines our prosperity as a Nation. Nowhere is that more evident than in the Central Valley of California. This last Congress sat idly by as this administration deliberately diverted 200 billion gallons of water away from the most abundant agricultural region of our Nation, all to satisfy the environmental left and its pet cause, a 3-inch minnow called the delta smelt. This willful diversion cost over 20,000 farm workers their jobs. It inflicted up to 40 percent unemployment rates in the region. It destroyed more than a quarter-million acres of the most fertile farmland in America. And it forced up the price of groceries for us all. Or we could start with the Klamath, where this administration is pushing to tear down four perfectly good hydroelectric dams that generate 155 megawatts of the cleanest and cheapest electricity on the planet, enough to power over 150,000 homes, because we are told of catastrophic declines of salmon. When I suggested building a salmon hatchery instead, I was informed there already is one. It produces 5 million salmon molt a year, 17,000 of which return to that river as fully grown adults to spawn. But they are deliberately ignored in the population counts. To add insult to insanity, as they tear down these dams in the name of saving the salmon, they are also tearing down the fish hatchery that actually is saving the salmon. Or we could begin in Colorado, where they have sacrificed over 1,000 megawatts from the Glen Canyon Dam for the humpback chub--at the expense of a long-neglected species called homo sapiens. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan was right: In this crisis, government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem. The good news is that it's entirely within our power to correct, and it was clearly the mandate of the American people last fall, and we will act on that mandate beginning with a series of hearings and actions directly related to this much-needed resolution.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank my friend for yielding, and I want to continue where my friend from California (Mr. Herger) left off, talking about what kind of times brought Ronald Reagan here to Washington. We are told today that we face the worst economy since the Great Depression. There are a lot of us that remember an even worse time, when we did have double-digit unemployment and double-digit inflation and mile-long lines around gas stations and interest rates that exceeded 20 percent. And, by the way, when we hear that our world is growing more dangerous by the day, I remember when an American Embassy could be seized with impunity, when an aggressive and expanding Soviet Union daily challenged American interests around the world, when communism went unchallenged in the Western Hemisphere, when the American military had been so badly weakened it couldn't even launch a successful rescue mission. Perhaps we don't remember those days as vividly because they didn't last very long. At that dark hour in our Nation's history, the American people turned to Ronald Reagan, who diagnosed our country's problems very accurately. In this crisis, he said, government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem. He said the Soviet Union is indeed an evil empire, and it was time, he said, that America stopped apologizing for its interests and started asserting them. At the time, the American left excoriated Reagan. They warned his policies would lead the Nation to starvation and the world to conflagration. Instead, we enjoyed a period of American prosperity and world influence that was best described with the words ``morning again in America.'' He reduced the tax and regulatory burdens that were crushing America's economy. He reduced government spending as a percentage of GDP. He restored America's military strength and reasserted American interests around the world. He stopped apologizing for America's greatness and started celebrating it. It was recalled earlier that in his farewell address Reagan attributed his success not to being a great communicator, but to the fact he was communicating great ideas, the self-evident truths of the American founding. He did one other thing. He restored those self- evident truths as the foundation of our domestic and foreign policy, and as a result our Nation prospered and the world enjoyed a rebirth of freedom. Unfortunately, Reagan's successors gradually abandoned his policies and Americans gradually let loose of those self-evident truths that inspired and animated those policies. But now as our Nation endures prolonged economic distress at home and increasing strife abroad, Americans are beginning to realize that our Nation hasn't been struck down by some mysterious act of God. What has happened to our country is because of specific acts of government, and, as Reagan knew, acts of government are fully within our power to change. Reagan charted the road back. Our Nation followed him down that road and we discovered that, yes, it does indeed lead to a shining city on a hill. As we remember Ronald Reagan, all that he was and all that he stood for, let's also remember what he did and where he led us. It isn't too late to return to those policies and get back on that road. Mr. Speaker, I want my children to know what morning again in America actually feels like. I want them to know the optimism that America's best days are yet ahead, and to know the pride and confidence of American exceptionalism. On this centennial of Ronald Reagan's birth, let's not just remember him; let's follow his example and get our Nation back on the road to freedom. And let those looking back on our generation say that just when it began to appear that our Nation had forgotten Ronald Reagan and squandered its wealth and abandoned its destiny and forsaken its founding principles, that this generation of Americans rediscovered, restored and revived the memory of Ronald Reagan and the promise of the American founding, and that from that moment in time, America began her next great era of expansion, prosperity and influence.