Tom McClintock

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas and the gentlewoman from Oregon for their bipartisan support of this measure, and I want to assure the gentlewoman from Oregon that the land exchange that she had suggested in Yosemite will not happen.

The Ackerson Meadow Land Interchange Act is a simple proposal to transfer administrative jurisdiction over approximately 160 acres of national forestland to Yosemite National Park, and then it would transfer approximately 170 acres of National Park System land to be a part of the Stanislaus National Forest.

Senator Padilla is carrying identical legislation in the Senate. We don't agree on much, but we certainly agree on this.

This legislation addresses a familiar problem in Federal land management in the Sierra Nevada, the checkerboard boundary lines that make land management disjointed and inefficient. This bill simply consolidates land jurisdictions between the National Park System and the National Forest System, without increasing the Federal footprint.

At issue is Ackerson Meadow. This meadow supports livestock grazing operations that have been part of the history and economy of this region for generations. These operations are essential for brush control and fire suppression, maintaining meadow conditions, and sustaining the rural economy that depends on the productive use of these lands.

Federal agencies, conservation organizations, and local ranchers have all worked together to improve the meadow while maintaining grazing opportunities.

Restoration projects have improved wetland conditions, enhanced water storage, improved habitat, and supported continued public uses, including grazing.

The proposed land exchange would make that cooperative approach easier by eliminating the confusion caused by split jurisdiction. Ranchers need to know where their permits apply, where infrastructure can be maintained, and who is responsible for decisions affecting their operations.

The bill also protects existing rights and authorizations. It specifically provides that valid existing rights, including rights-of- way, easements, leases, licenses, and permits remain protected after the transfer. This ensures that current users, including grazing permit holders, are not unfairly disrupted by a change in administrative jurisdiction.

It also appropriately maintains Federal responsibilities for hazardous substance cleanup and other obligations.

This bill reflects a principle that should guide Federal land policy. Management decisions should be based on the realities of the landscape and not simply of the boundaries drawn on a map decades ago.

Our national forests and parks serve many purposes. They preserve wildlife habitat, protect watersheds, provide recreation, and support rural economies. A balanced approach recognizes all of these values.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of H.R. 8454.

Mr. Speaker, when Tim Walz said that one man's socialism is another man's neighborliness, he got it completely backward. There is only one way to prosper in a capitalist society. You have to figure out what somebody else needs and get it for them better than they can get it for themselves. That might mean mowing their lawn. It might mean doing brain surgery on their child, but whatever it is, you have to help your neighbor.

Socialism is the opposite. It is taking by force what one person has earned by helping others and giving it to someone who has not. If I take a dollar from Peter and give it to Paul, I have helped Paul in the amount of one dollar and I have hurt Peter by that very same amount.

What I have really done is to rob both of them of one dollar's incentive of helping each other. Paul no longer needs to help Peter for his dollar and Peter no longer profits from helping Paul.

Freedom requires very little force because people are free to act according to their own needs and judgment and to prosper for their own talents and labor.

Socialism requires crushing government force because it must compel people to act against their own interests.

In a free society, every person gets to vote every day with every dollar they spend on what the society will produce, who will produce it, and how much they are willing to pay, all voluntarily.

In a socialist society, elites make those decisions for the people and then impose them on the people by force.

In a free society, every transaction benefits both parties by definition. In a socialist society, every transaction benefits one party while it hurts the other.

The lesson of history comes down to four words: Freedom rocks. Socialism sucks.

Mr. Chairman, I think we can all agree that this is not what a budget resolution should be used for, but, unfortunately, necessity commands it.

Reconciliation gives us a powerful tool to bring mandatory spending in line with revenues. Unfortunately, the exigencies that we face have left us with no choice but to use this process to assure that we can replenish our arsenals and strengthen the integrity of our elections.

The minority Democrats have vowed to obstruct these necessities in the Senate at a time when we are at war with Iran and at a time when public confidence in our election process is at an all-time low.

Reconciliation, which this solution sets in motion, is the only path that we can take to achieve these vital measures. I regret the circumstances that force us to employ reconciliation for this purpose, and I pray for the day when Congress fulfills its legal duty to enact a real budget resolution that sets our country back on the road to fiscal health.