Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Well, that is why for many years we thinned those forests, to reduce the intensity of those forest fires, to reduce the number of those forest fires, and from that excess timber, we provided a thriving economy throughout that region. And by the way, we also provided a tremendous revenue stream to the national Treasury because that timber is on land owned by the people of the United States. So we had healthier forests, and we had a healthy economy. Both have been imperiled by those policies. And then to that you have to add the tragedy of the human loss of those heroic young men like Mr. Marovich who gave his life today to try to stop those fires, which are much more intense today and much more numerous today than they were a generation ago when we practiced sound forest management practice.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Absolutely.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the chilling similarity between the broad-based taxes under the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade tax we passed several weeks ago and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 that economists blame as one of the major factors in producing the Great Depression. Another of Hoover's blunders was the Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932. Its centerpiece was a radical increase in income tax rates from 25 percent to well over 50 percent. If that sounds familiar, it should. That's one of the financing proposals in the health care bill that would push State and Federal income tax rates to more than 50 percent in most States. Mr. Speaker, when I see the same policies from this administration that turned the recession of 1929 into the Depression of the 1930s, I'm reminded of Ben Franklin's observation that ``experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.'' Mr. Speaker, these policies are lengthening and deepening this recession because this administration did not even learn from experience.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, when we talk about Herbert Hoover's mishandling of the recession of 1929, the very first thing that economists point to is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that imposed new taxes on over 20,000 imported products. I believe the Waxman-Markey bill is going to be looked back upon as our generation's Smoot-Hawley Act. In fact, it is worse. It imposes new taxes on an infinitely larger number of domestic products on a scale that utterly dwarfs Smoot-Hawley. At least Hoover could argue that Smoot-Hawley made domestic products more competitive with imports. Waxman-Markey disadvantages American products. When California adopted similar carbon restrictions 3 years ago, we too were promised an explosion of green jobs. Instead, California's unemployment rate has skyrocketed to one of the highest in the country. I believe that if this bill becomes law, history guarantees us two things. Number one, the planet will continue to warm and to cool as it has been doing for billions of years; and two, Congress will have just delivered a staggering blow to our Nation's economy just at the time when it is most vulnerable.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I had a strange sense of deja vu as I stood here on the floor of the House and watched all of the self- congratulatory rhetoric a few moments ago on the passage of the cap- and-trade bill, and I feel the need to rise to issue an urgent warning from the west coast. I stood on the floor of the Senate of California 3 years ago and watched a very similar bill adopted and watched the same sort of self- congratulatory celebrations as we just saw here, and I have watched over those years as that measure has dramatically deepened California's recession. It uses a slightly different mechanism than cap-and-trade, but the objective is exactly the same, to force a dramatic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Now, up until that bill took effect, California's unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate. But then, in January of 2007, California's unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures. Today, California's unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate and is at its highest point since 1941. What happened in January of 2007? AB 32 took effect and it began shutting down entire sectors of California's economy. Let me give you just one example from my own district. The city of Truckee, California, was about to sign a long-term power contract to get its electricity from a new EPA-approved coal-fired plant way off in Utah. But AB 32 and companion legislation caused them to abandon that contract. The replacement power that they acquired literally doubled their electricity costs. So when economists warn that we can expect electricity prices to double under the cap-and-trade bill, I can tell you from the bitter experience of my district that that is not some future prediction. That is a historical fact. Governor Schwarzenegger assured us at the time that AB 32 would mean an explosion of new, green jobs--exactly the same promises that we heard on this floor today. Well, in California exactly the opposite has happened. We have lost so many jobs that the UCSB economic forecast is now using the D word-- depression--to describe California's job market. Mr. Speaker, the cap-and-trade bill proposes what amounts to endlessly increasing taxes on any enterprises that produce carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gases. We need to understand exactly what that means. It has profound implications for agriculture, construction, cargo and passenger transportation, energy production, baking and brewing--all of which produce enormous quantities of this innocuous, ubiquitous compound. In fact, every human being produces 2.2 pounds of carbon dioxide every day--just by breathing. So applying a tax to the economy designed to radically constrict carbon dioxide emissions means radically constricting the economy. And this brings us to the fine point of the matter. When we look back on the folly of the Hoover administration and how it turned the recession of 1929 into the Depression of the 1930s, the first thing that economists point to is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that imposed new taxes on 20,000 imported products. The Waxman-Markey bill, I'm afraid, is our generation's Smoot-Hawley that imposes new taxes on an infinitely larger list of domestic products on a scale that utterly dwarfs Smoot-Hawley. Let's ignore for the moment the fact that the planet's climate is constantly changing and that long-term global warming has been going on since the last ice age. Let's ignore the fact within recorded history we know of periods when the Earth's climate has been much warmer than it is today, and others when it's been much cooler. Let's ignore the thousands of climate scientists and meteorologists who've concluded that human-produced greenhouse gases are, at most, a negligible factor in global warming or climate change. Ignore all of that and we're still left with one lousy sense of timing. In the most serious recession since the Great Depression, why is it that Members of this House want to repeat the same mistakes that produced the Great Depression? Watching how California has just wrecked its own economy and destroyed its own finances, why would Members of this House want to do the same thing to our Nation? Mr. Speaker, this is deadly serious stuff. It transcends ideology and politics. This House has just made the biggest economic mistake since the days of Herbert Hoover. Two things are certain if this measure becomes law. First, our planet is going to continue to warm and cool, as it's been doing for billions of years. And, secondly, this House will have just delivered a staggering blow to our Nation's economy at precisely that moment when the economy has been the most vulnerable.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, many years ago, author and commentator Bruce Herschensohn made the point that for every pleasure in life, there is a corresponding risk. I think that is a universal truth: for every pleasure in life, there is a corresponding risk. And he pointed out it is true that with enough taxes and laws and restrictions and regulations and penalties and lectures, government can produce a virtually risk-free society, but it will also be one of the most colorless, pleasureless, tedious, and miserable societies ever conceived by the mind of man. I think that is the case. The health dangers of smoking are real and they are well-documented. We all agree on that. It is a very bad thing to do. Our schools rightly make a concerted effort to inform every child of the health risks associated with tobacco products, and they do a good job of it. Our government warns every adult of the risks associated with tobacco products, and they do a good job of it, too. As a result, I don't believe there is a single individual in the United States today who doesn't well and fully comprehend the health dangers of tobacco. But once those warnings are issued, how much further should government go to make individual decisions for rational adults as they weigh the risks of smoking for themselves? Personally, I think they are making a very bad decision, but they probably think others are making bad decisions when they decide to go skiing or bungee jumping or sky diving or thousands of other pleasures that incur corresponding and calculated risks. I would ask today, whatever happened to the notion of individual responsibility? And whatever happened to the notion, as Jefferson put it, of a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, but shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement?

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the Governor of my home State of California has called for the Federal Government to underwrite as much as $15 billion of revenue anticipation notes that the State has to issue to avoid bankruptcy. I think that would be a colossal mistake. Such an act would not only put at risk billions of dollars that our country cannot afford, it would actually make California's fiscal condition worse. Today, California faces a paradox. Despite record levels of spending and record levels of borrowing, it can no longer produce a decent road system or educate its kids or lock up its prisoners. Those who blame the recession for California's budget crisis profoundly misunderstand the nature of that crisis. Even before California's revenue began to shrink, the State government was running a chronic $10 billion deficit and piling up unprecedented debt. The recession was merely the catalyst. The underlying cause is rampant mismanagement of the State's resources. California spends about $43,000 to house a prisoner per year, while many States spend just half of that. California spends over $11,000 per pupil, but only a fraction of that ever reaches the classroom. California has one of the most expensive welfare systems in the country, and yet one of the worst records in moving people off of welfare. That has never seemed to bother California's legislature or its Governor. They are like the shopkeeper who leased out too much space, ordered too much inventory, hired too many people and paid them too much. Every moment that shopkeeper covers his shortfalls with borrowing and bookkeeping tricks. Ultimately he is going to reach a tipping point, where anything he does makes the situation worse. Borrowing costs are eating him alive and he is running out of credit. Raising prices causes his sales to decline and there is only so much discretionary spending that he can cut. That is California's predicament in a nutshell. California's borrowing costs now exceed the budget of the entire University of California, and the reason for their loan guarantees is their credit is exhausted. They have just imposed the biggest tax increase by any State in American history, and it has actually reduced their revenues and made the budget gap wider. Although there are many obsolete, duplicative or low-priority programs and expenditures that the State can and should abolish, there aren't enough of them to come anywhere close to closing California's deficit without directly impacting basic services. Sadly, California has reached the terminal stage of a bureaucratic state, where government has become so large and so tangled that it can no longer perform even basic functions, a warning to all of us here in this House, I might add. Simply stated, there is now no substitute for a fundamental restructuring of the State's major service delivery systems and restoring the efficiencies that once produced a far higher level of service at far lower costs than what we see today. Now, restoring that efficiency is going to require the Governor and the legislature to wrest control from the public employee unions, to dismantle the enormous bureaucracies that have grown up over the service delivery system, and to decentralize administration and decisionmaking, to contract out services that the private sector can provide more efficiently, to rescind the recent tax increases that are actually costing the State money, and to roll back the regulatory obstacles to productive enterprise. These are the changes that cannot be implemented overnight and that will not begin to produce results for some time, and that brings us to the fine point of the matter. What Churchill called history's ``chilling words'' are about to be pronounced on California's failed leadership: Too late. The Federal loan guarantee or bailout may be the only way to buy time for the restructuring of California's bureaucracies to take effect, but the discussion remains academic until and unless the State actually adopts the replacement structures, actually unburdens its shrinking productive sector and presents a credible plan to redeem the State's crushing debt and looming obligations. Without these actions, Federal intervention will only make California's problems worse by postponing reform, continuing unsustainable spending and piling up still more debt that the State cannot redeem. In short, if California won't help itself, the Federal Government cannot and it should not and it must not.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Deputy Shawn Webb of the Plumas County Sheriff's Department. The entire department, joined by the people of Plumas County, are rallying behind this remarkable young man and his family as he battles a very difficult illness. You don't see this kind of outpouring very often these days. It is a testament to the impact that Deputy Shawn Webb has had on his department and on his community. Shawn's Commander writes, ``We here in Plumas County are blessed to have a `Grade A' California-raised, true-blooded American Hero.'' So I rise to salute the bravery and dedication that Deputy Shawn Webb has brought to his professional life in protecting our community, qualities now so conspicuous in his battle in his personal life. I also want to salute the people of Plumas County who have embraced and supported Shawn and his family in this difficult time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman from Kentucky wants to know why Republicans oppose the government takeover of our health care system, I would invite him to consult the many, many refugees from Canada and Britain who have come here to America to get their health care, because they simply can't survive with bureaucrats telling them what treatments they'll get and when they'll get them. The Republicans are proposing to bring within the reach of every American family a basic health plan that they will own, that they can change if it fails to suit them and that they will hold wherever they work and under whatever circumstances they work; but Madam Speaker, I'm here on different business this morning. I'm here to talk about the right of workers. Their right to gather and to bargain collectively with an employer is a fundamental right of labor. It often strengthens the position of individual workers as they negotiate with a powerful employer. Yet survey after survey tells us that union members are less satisfied with their jobs than nonunion workers, and many Americans today simply refuse to work in union shops at all. So why is it that a bargaining process designed to improve workers' satisfaction should produce such dissatisfaction? Perhaps the answer rests with the simple human desire in each of us to excel in what we do and to be recognized and rewarded for that excellence. Collective bargaining increases the ability of workers to take a stronger position to negotiate with an employer, and this is good, but they're then left to give up any individual rewards for outstanding work. Union workers end up trapped with a one-size-fits-all contract that denies them the dignity that comes from individual excellence and achievement. No matter how hard that worker toils or no matter how much he produces, he gets paid exactly the same as the coal worker who puts in minimal effort. Well, why shouldn't workers get extra pay and performance bonuses beyond the union-negotiated wage base? Why does the wage floor set through union contracts also have to be a wage ceiling for those union members who go the extra mile to get ahead? Union leaders may see value in wiping out individual initiative to build solidarity among rank-and-file members, but those workers would be far better off if they could enjoy both the advantages of collective bargaining and the additional rewards of individual performance raises and bonuses. Many unionized businesses would gladly pay individual workers more if they could. Some have tried, but over the years, the National Labor Relations Board has repeatedly struck them down. For that reason, I have introduced the Rewarding Achievement and Incentivizing Successful Employees, or RAISE Act, H.R. 2732. It will allow working union members to escape the false choice between collective bargaining and individual reward that our outdated labor laws have forced upon them. Senator Vitter has introduced a similar bill in the Senate. Under the RAISE Act, union members would retain all of the collective bargaining rights under current law, and employers would be bound to the wage and benefit schedules negotiated under those laws. In addition to the floor established by the union contract, employers could add bonuses for those workers who go the extra mile, combining the benefits of collective bargaining with the rewards of individual achievement. Years ago, Admiral Grace Hopper observed that, in all of her years in the United States Navy, she had determined that the greatest impediment to human progress is the phrase ``but we've always done it this way.'' That's the only answer we've heard so far in opposition to this simple reform, and in days like these, that's no answer at all.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, in memory of Jack Kemp, I would like the following article included in the Congressional Record. Republicans Looking for a modern inspiration? Jack Kemp's life provides ideas (By Jack Cox) There has been much press coverage these days about the problems of the Republican Party seeking a new identity that resonates with Americans. Too often, Republicans and conservatives are criticized for lacking compassion and concern for many social issues of interest to many Americans. In the 1960's, Conservatives had little involvement in the historic battle for civil rights. Most Republicans opposed the civil rights act in 1964, including Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, and a great deal of resentment grew within the African American community over this apparent indifference. It was, of course, Republicans with President Lincoln that led the battle to end slavery and liberate blacks from the intolerable practice. Thirty two years earlier, William Wilberforce, a noted Member of Parliament and British Christian leader had led the battle to end slavery in England. Unfortunately, during the last half of the 20th Century too many conservatives, Republicans specifically, were uninvolved in the battle. That disinterest was tied not to bigotry but rather other priorities including a major battle to oppose the spread of Communism from the Soviet Union and ``Red China.'' Senator Goldwater, a charter member of the Phoenix NAACP, opposed it on states' rights grounds. It was a warm summer day during the 1996 Presidential Campaign that the National Association of Black Journalists annual convention was held in Nashville. The organization, as most journalism groups, invites Presidential candidates to address their members. On that humid Tennessee day Republican Presidential Candidate Robert Dole and Vice Presidential Candidate Jack Kemp were slated to speak to the several thousand African American journalists from around the nation. Most Republicans would have described this group as anything but a friendly organization to GOP candidates. Senator Dole was introduced with polite applause. Then Jack Kemp was introduced and he received a standing ovation. I sat in awe as these black Americans applauded a white Republican leader. Jack stayed after his speech and shook the hand of every young journalist who wanted to meet him. There was no story about this incident and it has received no notice that I have ever seen. Why did Jack get this reception? It is easy to understand why -- Jack Kemp cared and he demonstrated that care over a life time. He was committed to the wisdom of a free market but he also saw that sometimes people fell through the cracks and that government has the responsibility to help them. However, Jack was committed to giving people opportunity, not hand outs. He had the strong respect of millions of Americans. In my many personal conversations with Jack and my work with him, that caring attitude came through like a laser beam! Jack, in the past decade, spoke strongly for a guest worker program for illegal immigrants and a method for these folks to become legal residents of the United States. Jack saw these people as hard workers who were trying to achieve the American dream, one sought by millions from throughout the world. Jack observed one time ``Republicans many times can't get the words `equality of opportunity' out of their mouths. Their lips do not form that way.'' He also declared ``There really has not been a strong Republican message to either the poor or the African American community at large.'' He also noted ``When people lack jobs, opportunity, and ownership of property they have little or no stake in their communities.'' In 1964, Senator Barry Goldwater was defeated for the presidency. Look Magazine, shortly after the solid defeat, asked writer Richard Cornuelle to write a piece entitled a ``Positive Agenda for the Republican Party.'' In 1965, Cornuelle published a new book ``Reclaiming the American Dream.'' Cornuelle, like Jack Kemp, called on Republicans to have answers and a positive agenda instead of constant opposition to government. He coined the phrase ``the independent section'' which described the vital role that associations, churches, and individuals play in meeting the needs of society. Unfortunately, Dick Cornuelle's ideas, like Jack Kemp's, were not seen as providing direction for the future of the Republican Party by some leaders. Jack Kemp was a dynamic individual who, like Ronald Reagan, always saw a glass half full rather than half empty. If the Republican Party is to begin carrying a positive banner of hope and leadership, it will need to be like Jack Kemp's. Perhaps with the loss of Jack Kemp, the time has come for the party and Conservatives in general to reexamine their priorities and reach out to all Americans. Indeed it is a time for all Americans to rekindle their faith in an America of strong commitment to a free market system which strives to reach all Americans, not with a hand out but with a hand up. Kemp reminded us ``There are no limits to our future if we don't put limits on our people.'' At the same time, Jack never lost his commitment to the idea that a growing economy is the only answer to enriching more Americans instead of fewer. He saw redistribution of wealth as a policy for failure. His vision for government was simple: ``Every time in this century we've lowered the tax rates across the board, on employment, on saving, investment and risk-taking in this economy, revenues went up, not down.'' It was interesting that another dynamic leader in the Democratic Party held that same view, John F. Kennedy, another inspirational leader. Finally, as the Republican Party thinks about is future and the Democrats, now in power, contemplate how they responsibly use their power, we should remember Jack Kemp's words ``Democracy without morality is impossible.'' I, as so many others Americans of all colors and all parties, will miss Jack Kemp.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with the sad duty of recognizing the death in combat of Army Specialist Jeremiah P. McCleery, age 24, of Portola, California. Mr. Speaker, if you read the observations of his friends, you very quickly realize this was not only an irreplaceable loss to his family and a monumental loss to his community, but it was also a terrible loss for our country. Miah, as he was known, was simply a good kid. He made friends easily, he had a great sense of humor, and he had wanted to join the Army since he was 4 years old. He was an exemplary soldier who commanded the friendship and respect of his colleagues. He had fallen in love with a girl at Fort Hood before he shipped out, with their whole lives ahead of them. A friend of his, Josh Rodgers, was asked when Miah McCleery was happiest, and the answer was, ``doing anything with his dad.'' They had lost his mother, Collette, to cancer a few years ago. His father, Joe, worked at a refuse collection company and later at a sheet metal business, and Miah was often at his side. That same friend was asked why Jeremiah had enlisted. The response, ``he always wanted to when he was a kid. He probably just wanted to out of patriotic duty to go serve. And I think he wanted to go do his part.'' The question first asked by Jim Michener thunders across the countryside with a loss like this: ``Where do we get such men?'' Mr. Speaker, I don't know how to offer condolences to Miah McCleery's family, to his father, Joe, to his sisters, Lynette and Chastity, and to his grandparents and many friends. The loss they bear is beyond my comprehension. I can only offer my awe and gratitude that humanity has within itself a small band of brothers like Jeremiah McCleery who stepped forward not for treasure or profit nor even to defend their own freedom. But rather, to win the freedom of a people half a world away. And they do it because their country asks and because it is virtuous and noble. A few feet from here in the Capitol Rotunda is a fresco called the ``Apotheosis of Washington.'' It depicts General Washington, in uniform, ascending to the heavens, flanked by victory and freedom, and surrounded by the essence and fruits of a free Nation. And in that depiction, Washington beckons. From little towns like Portola, California, decent young men and women with promising futures, like Jeremiah McCleery, have answered. And I don't know where we get such men, and I don't know how their families can bear it. But I do know what we owe them. And I do know that we can never repay that debt, except to honor their memory and keep their sacrifice always in mind, those who gave up everything ``to proclaim liberty throughout all the land, and unto all the inhabitants thereof.''

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, it comes down to this: Free societies punish acts. Authoritarian regimes punish opinions and thoughts. Now, the supporters of this bill speak of punishing violent acts, but we already punish those violent acts, as well we should. This measure calls for additional punishment, not for the violent act, but for the opinion behind the act. Before we embarked down this path, the opinions of the criminal were irrelevant. It was the act that we proscribed, and it was the act that we punished. Many civil libertarians warned us then that if we place in the hands of government the ability to define what opinions it likes and doesn't like, and then to punish those opinions on top of the acts themselves, then we've started down a very dangerous and slippery slope. That opinion, I think, was clearly illustrated when the committee voted down an amendment to include veterans, for example, under these protections under the hate crimes law. Now, the supporters of this measure made it very clear that they're actively involved in singling out particular opinions with special protection and for special prosecution.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the statue of Ronald Reagan could not possibly be arriving here at the United States Capitol at a more appropriate time in the history of our Nation. In these difficult days, we need to remind ourselves as a Nation what it was like when it truly was morning again in America. They say it is always darkest before the dawn, and Ronald Reagan took office at a far more difficult time than the one we are having right now. We tend to forget double-digit unemployment, double-digit inflation, interest rates above 20 percent, mile-long lines around gas stations, American embassies seized with impunity, and an American military so weak it couldn't mount a simple rescue mission. The arrival of this statue and all that it represents is a potent reminder that when our Nation has drifted off course, we have always found our way back to those grand and uniquely American principles of individual rights, personal responsibility, limited government and free enterprise that define us as a people. It is true, Ronald Reagan was a great communicator. But as William Saracino has said, Reagan wasn't communicating cookie recipes. He was communicating the self-evident truths of the American tradition. And those truths resonated throughout the Nation and ultimately produced that bright moment when we realized that it indeed was morning again in America. May this statue of Ronald Reagan remain here always as a promise that America's greatest days still lie ahead and that our founding principles will always shine as a bright beacon toward a safe harbor in the stormy tempests we have encountered and that we have yet to encounter.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, many Americans have been shocked in recent days to learn that banks that are seeking to repay TARP money have been told that the Treasury will not allow them to do so. The taxpayers were promised that this money was to be used to buy up toxic assets and that it would be repaid to the Treasury as soon as humanly possible. Well, not a single toxic asset has been purchased, and now when several banks have attempted to return that money, they have been told the Treasury will not allow them to do so. This is a travesty. Just a few weeks ago, many Members of this House in this Chamber reacted to the AIG bonus fiasco by saying, ``We want our money back.'' And yet when some banks have attempted to do exactly that, they have been turned away at the Treasury gates. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced legislation to require the Secretary of the Treasury to accept TARP repayments unconditionally and immediately when they are presented. I hope that I can count on the support of all of those in this House who promised their constituents that these funds would be repaid at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, today this House passed H.R. 1256, which takes tobacco regulation to a whole new level and, at the same time, imposes onerous new fees that are going to be transferred to consumers as higher prices. The entire debate over the bill was over what method should be used to do so. Before we close today's proceedings, I'd like to offer a somewhat different perspective. Many years ago, author and commentator Bruce Herschensohn made this point. He said, ``For every pleasure in life, there is a corresponding risk. I think that's a universal truth--for every pleasure in life, there is a corresponding risk. And he pointed out that it's true that with enough taxes and laws and restrictions and regulations and penalties and lectures, government can produce a virtually risk-free society. But it will also be one of the most colorless, pleasureless, tedious, and miserable societies ever conceived by the mind of man. I believe that's the case. The health risks of smoking are real and they are well-documented. Our schools rightly make a concerted effort to inform every child of the health risks of tobacco--and they do a good job of it. Our government warns every adult of the health risks of tobacco--and they do a good job of it, too. As a result, I don't believe there's a single individual in the United States who doesn't well and fully comprehend the health risks of tobacco. But once those warnings are issued, how much farther should government go to make individual decisions for rational adults if they weigh the risks of smoking for themselves? Ten years ago, after California had imposed yet another tax on tobacco products, I got a letter from a woman who said, ``I'm 81 years old. I have been smoking my entire life. If I have to quit now, I'm going to die.'' She then went on to meticulously calculate how much the new tax cost would cost her on her limited, fixed income, and asked if I could help. Madam Speaker, in every society, in every part of the world, in every period of history there is always a large group of people who simply want to be left alone to live their lives according to their own best judgment. And there's always a smaller but more domineering group who believe they're so good at running their own lives that they're just naturally entitled to run everybody else's as well. Rarely has that conflict between these two groups come into sharper focus than in the ongoing efforts to restrict and regulate and tax and harass and intimidate individuals who, after weighing all the risks, decide to smoke anyway. Personally, I think they're making a very bad decision. But they probably think others are making a very bad decision when they decide to go skiing or bungee jumping or skydiving or thousands of other pleasures that incur corresponding and calculated risks. I wonder tonight whatever happened to the notion of personal responsibility and whatever happened to the notion, as Jefferson put it, of ``a wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another but shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.''

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, I feel a moment of rare bipartisan agreement coming on. I noticed several of my friends on the left said that our problems are rooted in the fiscal mismanagement of the Bush administration. The gentleman from Virginia had a very good chart entitled Record Deterioration of the Budget Under Republican Administration. I agree. There is no denying it, George W. Bush increased spending twice as fast as his predecessor Bill Clinton did. He turned a budget surplus into a chronic deficit. You are absolutely right. So if we all agree that Bush spent too much and borrowed too much, then why in the world would we want to pursue the same folly on an even grander scale? Why would we take that Bush administration's unsustainable rate of spending growth and send it even higher? Why would we want to take that budget deficit, which is indefensible, and triple it? If budgets that spend too much and borrow too much on the road to economic prosperity work, then why aren't we already enjoying a period of unprecedented economic expansion? The fact is, these policies don't work. And it doesn't matter whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican. They don't work, because government cannot inject a single dollar into the economy that it has not first taken out of that same economy. Those policies don't work for the same reason that you can't spend yourself rich or borrow your way out of debt or tax your way to prosperity. If you want to know where these policies lead, just look to my home State of California. I have watched three governors, Republican and Democrat, do exactly what my friends on the left assure us is the road to prosperity. They increased spending at unsustainable rates, they ran up unprecedented debts, and they imposed crushing new taxes. And the result is that today California has been transformed from the Nation's Golden State to a state of collapse. A record level of government spending has not produced prosperity; it has produced one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Interest costs driven by years of borrowing are now eating into its budget. Its tax burden is producing a population exodus unknown since the days of the Dust Bowl. In fact, the State has spent so much that it has just imposed the biggest tax increase by any State in American history. California has borrowed so much that it is now in very real danger of defaulting on its obligations before the end of the summer. And, I am concerned that the President and many Democrats in Congress are making exactly the same mistake that the Bush administration made and that three California governors made, only on a much greater scale. Madam Chair, I would suggest that, at a moment like this, perhaps it is time that we recognize the first law of holes: When you are in one, stop digging.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, Americans are awakening to the danger of a budget that spends too much, borrows too much, and taxes too much, because they know what that means. They know that you can't spend yourself rich; they know you can't borrow your way out of debt; and, they know that you can't tax your way to prosperity. No Nation in the world has ever spent and borrowed and taxed its way to economic health, but many Nations have spent and borrowed and taxed their way to economic ruin and bankruptcy. If you all want to know where all of these policies are taking us, just look to my home State of California. There a tragic succession of Governors increased spending at unsustainable rates. They ran up unprecedented debts, and they imposed crushing new taxes. And the result is that today runaway spending has impoverished our economy. Interest costs are eating our budget alive. And our tax burden is producing one of the highest unemployment rates in the Nation and the biggest out-migration of domestic population in our history. Indeed, we debate this budget on the very day that California begins collecting the biggest tax increase ever imposed by any State government in our Nation's history, the natural consequence of runaway spending, just as President Obama relies on the biggest tax increase by the Federal Government in our Nation's history. There will be backbreaking new taxes on small businesses, on investment, on energy production and on charitable giving. And this isn't complicated stuff. If you increase taxes on productivity, you get less productivity. If you increase taxes on energy production, you get less energy. If you increase taxes on charitable giving, you get less charity. If you increase taxes on investments, you get less job creation. Madam Chairman, I have watched too much spending and too much borrowing and too much taxing wreck my home State of California. I beg you, do not let those same policies ruin our country.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, Abraham Lincoln once told of a farmer who said, ``I ain't greedy for land. All I want is what is next to mine.'' I think our Federal Government is starting to resemble that farmer. H.R. 146 is a massive land grab that would literally put more land in the United States into wilderness designation than we currently have actually developed from coast to coast. That pretty much means no human activities other than walking through it--as long as you don't touch anything. So I have to ask a question, when is enough enough? The Federal Government already owns nearly 650 million acres of land. That is 30 percent of the entire land area of the United States. It owns 45 percent of my home State of California. Now, compare that to the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., the Federal Capital, the home to every agency in our vast Federal bureaucracy. The Federal Government owns only 25 percent of the District of Columbia. The bill is estimated to cost about $10 billion, not only to pay for this land grab but for all of the other bells and whistles that are attached to it. That includes congressional earmarks like $3.5 million to celebrate the birthday of St. Augustine, Florida, and $250,000 to decide--to decide--what we are going to do with Alexander Hamilton's boyhood home in the Virgin Islands. Now, $1 billion of the $10 billion of this bill is for salmon population restoration on the San Joaquin River in California, with the stated objective of establishing a population of at least 500 salmon. Five hundred salmon. One billion dollars. Mr. Speaker, that comes to $2 million per fish. And that is without accounting for all of the costs that will be incurred by central valley farmers as water that is already in critically short supply is diverted to this project. Overall, this bill spends $10 billion of people's earnings. In real world numbers, that means about $130 from an average family of four through their taxes. I'm afraid that the mega-spending by this administration has begun to desensitize us to figures that are under $1 trillion. But let's try to put this $10 billion in perspective. The National Park Service reports a maintenance backlog of $9 billion on the land we already own. So, we can't take care of the land we already have, but we are going to spend $10 billion on acquiring additional land that we can't take care of. This bill withdraws 3 million acres of land from energy leasing. Just from reserves that we know about, that is going to cost the American economy 330 million barrels of oil and 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in Wyoming alone. I was particularly struck by a provision that allows the Federal Government to condemn private property where fossils are found. So if you find a fossil in your backyard, Mother and Father America, be very careful. You will be well advised to keep it a secret. Under this bill, such a discovery could cost you your property. This bill also means new restrictions on BLM lands. Now these public lands currently contribute to our Nation's economy by providing multiple uses such as farming, ranching, timber harvesting and offroad vehicle recreation, all for the broader public good. I have an awful lot of land in my district that is under Federal jurisdiction and under BLM management, and the constant complaints that I get from the public are not that there is too much access to public lands, but that there is too little access and too many restrictions to those lands. This bill codifies the National Landscape Conservation System, which means less public access and more restrictions on the public's use of the public's land. So I ask again, when is enough enough? The preservation of public land is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end, that end being the public good. And the public good is not served by the mindless and endless acquisition of property at the expense of the sustainable use of our natural resources, the responsible stewardship of our public lands and the freedom and property rights of our citizens. National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action, Fairfax, VA, March 10, 2009. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. John Boehner, Republican Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner: On behalf of the National Rifle Association, I am writing to express our support for the Altmire amendment to S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The Altmire amendment would ensure that the provisions of S. 22 will not be used to close lands that are currently open to hunting, fishing, trapping, target shooting and other forms of traditional recreation. In addition, the amendment clarifies that the states retain the authority to manage resident fish and wildlife. Encroaching development and the increasing population demand for open space has resulted the closure of federal lands that were once open to traditional forms of recreation, such as hunting and target shooting. Whether it is the closure of a trail that served as the access point for a generations-old hunting camp or the closure of large areas to target shooting, the sportsman's way of life has been under attack. There are those who would exacerbate this situation by attempting to use land designations to further close federal lands to sportsmen. This is why the Altmire amendment is necessary. The Altmire amendment has already been applied to the National Landscape Conservation System Act within S. 22. It is critical to extend this protection for sportsmen to other areas of the bill, specifically Titles V and VIII pertaining to Rivers and Trails and National Heritage Areas, respectively. This is precisely what the Altmire amendment would do. While the NRA takes no position on S. 22 as a whole, the meaningful protections provided by the Altmire amendment are critical to preserve access for sportsmen and the authority of the states to manage resident wildlife populations. For these reasons, we support its inclusion in S. 22. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (202) 651-2560. Sincerely, Chris W. Cox, Executive Director, NRA-ILA.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I certainly support H.R. 1404. It is going to add some flexibility in managing firefighting costs on our Federal lands, but my friend, the gentleman from Washington, is absolutely correct. Our firefighting costs would be much lower and our revenues would be much higher if we'd restore the sound forest management practices that this Congress long ago abandoned. Instead, we've embraced a radical and retrograde ideology that we should abandon our public lands to overpopulation, overgrowth, and benign neglect. Bills like this one are made necessary precisely because of this public falling. A generation ago we recognized the importance of proper wildlands management. We recognized that nothing is more devastating to the ecology of a forest than a forest fire, and we recognized that in any living community, including forests, dense overpopulation is unhealthy. And so we carefully groomed our public lands. We removed excessive vegetation, and we gave timber the room it needs to go. Surplus timber and overgrowth were sold for the benefit of our communities. Our forests prospered, our economy prospered, and forest fires were far less numerous and far less severe than we suffer today. Today, we're seeing the damage done to our forests and to our economy by this Luddite ideology that human beings shouldn't touch our natural resources. My region in northeastern California has been tormented by devastating fires in the last few years, and the reason is quite simple. As one forester explained it at a hearing we conducted in Sacramento, the excess timber is going to come out of the forests one way or the other. It's either going to be carried out or it's going to be burned out. A generation ago, we carried it out, and it fueled prosperity throughout our region and produced a cornucopia of revenues to the Federal Government. But today, it's being burned out, fueling devastating fires that are destroying vast tracts of land and destroying the abundance and prosperity that we once enjoyed. The first victim of this wrongheaded policy is the environment itself. Our recent forest fires have made a mockery of all our clean air regulations. As the gentleman from Washington pointed out, those concerned about carbon dioxide might be interested in a report by scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado at Boulder. They estimated that a single forest fire in California in 2007 produced about 25 percent of the average monthly emissions from all fossil fuel burning throughout all of California. Anyone who's seen a forest after one of these fires knows that the environmental devastation could not possibly be more complete. But the cost of these policies doesn't end there. Timber is a renewable resource. If properly managed, it's literally an inexhaustible source of prosperity. And yet my region, blessed with one of the most bountiful renewable resources in the Nation, has been rendered economically prostrate. A region that once prospered from its surplus timber is now ravaged by fires that are fueled by that surplus timber. The gentleman from Washington mentioned the little town of Quincy, California, that happens to be in my district--population 2,000. About 500 families. As of May 4, 150 of those families are going to be out of work because the sawmill had to shut down. Environmental litigation has tied up about two-thirds of their timber harvest. The company that owns that sawmill, Sierra Pacific, also just announced today that it's shutting down its sawmills in Sonora and Camino for the same reason. That's another 310 families out of work. This is not environmentalism. A true environmentalist recognizes the damage done by overgrowth and overpopulation and they recognize the role of sound forest management practices in maintaining healthy forests. So, Mr. Chairman, while I support this legislation, we wouldn't need to be spending so much putting out fires and we'd have a lot more revenue to do it with if we would spend a little more effort on restoring sound forest management practices to our national forests.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I have been asked to present more than 6,000 postcards that were generated by the Armstrong and Getty radio show to protest policies that can best be described by the new bumper sticker ``Honk if You're Paying My Mortgage'' or today's reprise ``Honk if You're Paying AIG's Bonuses.'' These postcards represent the first stirring of the public against some of the excesses that we are seeing out of this administration on the mortgage issue. Rick Santelli of CNBC struck a nerve last month when he asked, ``How many of you want to pay your neighbor's mortgage who has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?'' Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty, who host the popular radio talk show in Northern California, asked the same question of their listeners. And here's their response: On each of these thousands of postcards is the story of a responsible family struggling to make ends meet in the worst recession in a generation, families who are meeting their obligations, who are staying current with their mortgages, even though many of them are upside down on their home values and owe more than their home is worth. And they're watching as this government says to borrowers who lied on their applications, who put no money down and accepted teaser rates, and who withdrew all of the equity of their home to pay for stuff, don't worry, we'll force your neighbor to pay your mortgage. They're watching as this government says to lenders like AIG who knowingly made loans to people they knew couldn't afford them, who made millions creating the housing bubble, don't worry, we'll cover your million dollar bonuses with taxpayer money. But the families who sent in these postcards keep making their payments, many eating into their savings, foregoing vacations, postponing retirements, turning down consumer purchases because they stand by their word. These are the families that turned down the opportunity to flip that house, to make that quick fortune, to cash in on their equity for a second home or a boat they couldn't afford. They are the 92 percent of borrowers who are making their mortgage payments, despite all of the incentives that this administration's offering them to stop. And these postcards are eloquent testimony to their resentment at being required to bail out the banks and the borrowers who created the housing bubble, who caused the credit collapse, and who now are being subsidized, bailed out, and lavished with multi-million dollar bonuses paid for with our tax money. Joe Getty asked the question yesterday, ``What has happened to the words 'sadder but wiser'? What has happened to that American tradition that you make your own decisions, good or bad, and then you live with those decisions?'' The President tells us that if your neighbor's home is on fire, you don't quibble over who pays for the water. And that's true. But as Jack Armstrong pointed out, if my neighbor burns down his house by shooting off Roman candles in his living room, I'll be darned if I'm going to pay for him to rebuild it. Armstrong and Getty, Rick Santelli, and others are speaking for the vast silent majority of Americans who pay their bills, who honor their commitments, and who make this country run. The President recently said that we are all to blame. Well, no, we not all to blame. Those families who passed up the get-rich-quick real estate seminars and turned down the loans they couldn't afford or settled for a smaller home or who rented because that's what they could afford, they're not to blame, and they shouldn't be left holding the bag. Ninety-two 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 our homes will begin to appreciate once again. By prolonging the real estate correction, by propping up bad loans, by undermining responsible homeowners, and by rewarding the smartest guys in the room who created this catastrophe with taxpayer-paid bonuses, this government is extending the agony and postponing the day when the market will bottom out and home buyers can safely re-enter the housing market. Madam Speaker, I take great hope from the public's response to Armstrong and Getty's invitation to protest the mortgage bailouts. It means that the American spirit is not dead, that there are still millions of Americans who believe in individual responsibility and integrity. And even if such people are in short supply in Washington today, they still comprise the vast majority of our Nation, and that great silent majority is fast tiring of remaining silent.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, many people were quite relieved when President Obama promised to reduce taxes on 95 percent of Americans. Last week, the President introduced his new budget that depends upon a staggering tax increase of $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. If that fell on every one of us, that would come to nearly $15,000 for an average family of four, or about $1,500 per year, out of that family's paychecks. So what a relief it was to hear the President's assurances that that is only going to be a tax on the rich. Except, it is not. As we begin dissecting the President's new taxes, it is becoming crystal clear that they are actually hitting squarely at the middle- class, working families who are struggling to make ends meet in the worst economy in a generation. Let me walk you through the reasons why the President's new taxes are something that every middle-class family should fear. There are about $650 billion of direct tax increases, including a boost in the income tax of nearly 40 percent. Now, that is the part that the President says will only be on the very wealthy, which he defines as people making $125,000 a year or couples making $250,000. But when you scratch the surface, you learn that more than half of these folks aren't folks at all; they are small businesses. So if you work for or you own a small business, chances are this tax is for you. The rest is coming from increases in business taxes, either directly, or as cap-and-trade taxes for carbon dioxide emissions. That is a huge levee on every business that emits carbon dioxide. That includes construction, agriculture, cargo transportation, energy production, manufacturing, baking, distilling. Is that anything for the middle- class to worry about? You bet it is. I will let you in on a little secret of government finance: Businesses do not pay business taxes. There are only three possible ways that a business tax can be paid. It is paid by us as consumers through higher prices; it is paid by us as employees through lower wages; or, it is paid by us as investors through lower earnings, that is, what is remaining of our 401(k)s. There is simply no other possible way a business tax can be paid. The income tax deduction for charitable contributions is being curtailed for upper income taxpayers upon whom charities rely for the vast bulk of their donations every year. That means a lot less charitable contributions and a lot more demand for government services. At just the moment when investment is desperately needed to create new jobs, the President proposed hiking the capital gains tax. That means a lot less investment and a lot less job creation. Now, this is not a complicated principle: If you tax something, you get less of it. If you tax productivity, you get less productivity. If you tax charitable contributions, you get less charitable contributions. If you tax investments, you get less investments and less jobs. If you tax energy production, you get less energy. So just at the time when we need more productivity, more charity, more investment for jobs, and more energy, the Obama administration proposes a massive tax increase that they have the gall to tell us will stimulate the economy. These taxes will hammer every American, either directly or indirectly. At exactly the time when we should be reducing burdens on the economy, this administration wants to increase them. If the President wants to raise taxes because the government is out of money, what makes him think that the American people happen to be flush with cash? This is exactly the mistake that Herbert Hoover made in responding to the recession of 1929. He dramatically raised income taxes, import taxes, and spending, and he turned the recession of 1929 into the depression of the 1930s. Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, pointed out that a government that raises taxes in response to a recession makes exactly the same mistake as a shopkeeper who raises prices in response to a sales slump. California has again ignored that warning. It is set to impose the biggest State tax increase in history on April 1. That is going to be $13 billion from California families, proportionately a little bit less than the President's taxes, but it is in the same ballpark. I suspect that by the time the Obama budget, with all of its tax increases, comes up for a vote, California will have become a poster child for what not to do. Maybe, by then, the administration and the majority in Congress will figure out that raising taxes in a recession is not exactly the smartest thing that we could be doing.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of Dr. Gregory Freydman of California. Dr. Freydman spent most of his life seeking freedom for his family, and finally fulfilled that dream at the age of 72 when he legally immigrated to the United States from the Soviet Union. He had been a renowned oncologist there and had risked his livelihood and his liberty to speak out against Soviet abuses. Having seen firsthand the misery that tyranny inflicts on its people, Dr. Freydman devoted himself to learning English, studying the American system of government, and passing on his appreciation of American founding principles to his children and to his grandchildren. He proudly became a U.S. citizen at the age of 77. The highlight of his life was spending his final years in freedom with his beloved wife, Polina, secure in the knowledge that through a lifetime of struggle, he had secured the blessings of liberty for his posterity. May he now rest in peace.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank my friend for yielding. I thank the House for its indulgence. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure. Perhaps only one generation in a century is fortunate enough to actually know a truly great leader, and ours was that generation. But our children and our children's children will know him, too, through the power of his words and the force of his ideas, his undying faith in freedom, his eternal belief in America, and they will know him, and know him well, because our generation will make sure of it. The passing of Ronald Reagan didn't mark the end of an era. Rather, it marked the beginning of one--an era of American renaissance and resurgence, an era when America rediscovered her belief in liberty and faith. Ronald Reagan opened that era. It's now for our generation to cultivate it, to expand it, and to extend it to the next. He often reminded us that, for America, the best is yet to come. He was right. Because his memory will be walking beside us and counseling us and guiding us to those bright decades and centuries ahead. This commission is an important act in support of a large and solemn pledge--a pledge from this generation to all future generations that we will keep Ronald Reagan's memory alive, that we will uphold and advance his vision of America's greatness and of her goodness, and this act is but one thread in the tapestry of memory that will stretch through time to the latest generation.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Rev. Wadahawa Singh Gill, who passed away last week at age of 87. For many years Rev. Gill was the spiritual leader of the Sikh community in Northern California. He was an amazing man who not only ministered to the more than 100,000 Sikh faithful in the Sacramento region. He made himself a bridge between the Sikh community and the general public. No religious group has suffered more at the hands of Islamic extremists than the Sikhs; yet because the turban is part of their traditional Sikh clothing, his parishioners have suffered greatly from public reaction after the attack of September 11. It was Rev. Gill who reached out across that gulf of misunderstanding and began a remarkable process of assimilation that has made Sacramento's Sikh community an integral part of interfaith life in Northern California. His spiritual leadership will live on not only in the many books that he published but through the example that he set for those of all faiths who share the Sikh tradition of peace, tolerance, and goodwill to mankind.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. And I certainly concur with that. And what we are seeing here in this new administration are the same mistakes, multiplied, that we've just seen in the last administration. You know, before the failed $700 billion Bush bailout bill, this Nation's budget deficit was around $500 billion or so. Now, because of that mistake, the bailout bill--which, by the way, President Obama and many of my Democratic friends in the House supported and ultimately consummated--and because of all the other bills that have rushed through this House in the last few weeks with such reckless abandon, our deficit has tripled to $1.5 trillion for this year, on its way to an additional $1.75 trillion for next year. And as tempting as it is to censure the folly of the Bush administration's fiscal policies, I think we should be far more concerned with the greater leap in borrowing and spending that we are now pursuing under this administration. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is one institution that doesn't look back, and that's the stock market. The past is utterly irrelevant to the stock market; it doesn't care where the economy was yesterday, it cares very much where the economy will be tomorrow. The stock market is strictly a forward-looking measurement of what investors are betting will happen to our economy in the future under current policy. And the precipitous decline of the stock market since these new policies have been unveiled should be a warning to us all--today the stock market closed at its lowest point in 12 years. If the policies we're embarked upon were destined to save our economy, you would think that those who make their living betting on the economy would be buying like crazy, and they're not. Mr. Speaker, perhaps we would do well, then, to stop the partisan bombast and to realize that bad policy produces bad results, whether the President is a Republican or a Democrat; and, indeed, that Professor Einstein was right, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is, indeed, the definition of insanity. I yield back my time.