Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with Representative Ami Bera, Representative Doris Matsui, and Representative Doug LaMalfa, in honor of the service and sacrifice of Sacramento County, California, Sheriff Deputy Danny Oliver.

Danny Oliver grew up in the Del Paso Heights neighborhood of Sacramento, where he graduated from Grant High School. During his youth, Danny experienced parts of the community that he was determined to improve. This drove his desire to work in law enforcement, even though he came from a family of firefighters.

Danny finished the academy at the top of his class and served with the Sheriff's Department for fifteen years. In keeping with the life- long goal of cleaning up his community, Deputy Oliver worked on a highly competitive team of problem-oriented policing officers.

Tragically, Deputy Oliver was killed in the line of duty on October 24, 2014, during a violent crime spree that would later take the life of another officer, Detective Michael David Davis, Jr. Deputy Oliver died for his love of and devotion to his community.

Danny loved going into his job an hour early every morning, knowing he was putting his life on the line to make a difference in Sacramento County. While his sacrifice is to be honored, this is not his legacy. Rather, Danny's legacy is the memory of the man he lived his life as: a devoted husband to his wife Susan, a father who guided and supported his two children, and a dedicated officer.

Mr. Speaker, Deputy Danny Oliver will be deeply and sorely missed not only by his family, but also by the community that he tirelessly worked to better. The State of California is particularly blessed to have such men of character and heroism protecting our citizens.

Danny was known for influencing his children to do what they love, just as he did. We can all learn from his heart and strength of character. It is my privilege to rise in recognition of his sacrifice and to honor his memory.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with Representative Doug LaMalfa, in honor of the service and sacrifice of Placer County, California, Sheriff Detective Michael David Davis, Jr.

A long-time resident of Roseville, Detective Davis was a man of integrity and compassion. He cared about the community and took initiative to protect and better it. Such an example would be when Michael organized a funeral for an abandoned baby.

On October 24th, Detective Davis displayed immense courage and gallantry during a manhunt for the murderer of a fellow officer, Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff Danny Oliver. Detective Davis was killed in the line of duty, just as his father was struck down 26 years prior to the day.

Detective Davis faithfully and honorably served the Placer County community, joining the Sheriff's office in 1996. For the past fifteen years, Michael contributed to his family's legacy of law enforcement, just as his father did before him. Michael tirelessly worked as a homicide investigator, but he will be remembered for much more.

His bravery and kind soul will never be forgotten. He was a family man, devoted to his loving wife and four children. Michael is also survived by his four siblings, mother and step-father.

Mr. Speaker, Detective Michael David Davis, Jr. will be deeply and sorely missed not only by his family, but also by his community. The State of California, and particularly the Fourth Congressional District, was blessed to have had such a man of character and heroism protecting our citizens.

Michael's legacy will live on in the lives that he touched. Just as he served, he died embodying the virtues that form the foundation of this great nation. It is my privilege to rise in recognition of his sacrifice for Placer County and to honor his memory.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of The Honorable Janet Bibby, Mariposa County Supervisor.

Janet Bibby was born and raised in Mariposa County. She grew up in a ranching family with five generations of deep roots in the community.

Ms. Bibby's love of community forged the beginnings of her career as a public servant in Mariposa County in 1985. Janet served as the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and worked in the District Attorney's office and the Farm Advisors office. As a clerk in the District Attorney's office, she devoted herself to making the community a better place to live, work, and recreate. She was elected to the Mariposa Board of Supervisors in 2003 to represent the third district--an honor she has held for the past eleven years.

Janet Bibby has taken her commitment to public service seriously, tirelessly working for the constituents of Mariposa County. Her contributions to the advancement of agriculture in Mariposa are notable, as she has promoted the industry throughout her career. Janet has been involved in a variety of county-improvement projects to benefit those she represents, including: the Yosemite Wastewater Treatment Project, the construction of the Don Pedro Wastewater Treatment Facility, a multitude of projects to improve the local airport, and innumerable efforts to improve funding and support for fire stations.

Janet has also made significant efforts to make the county family- focused, such as the creation of the Recreational Sports Complex, the Mariposa Park Amphitheatre, the Arts Park, and the Skate Park.

This is only a sampling of the work Ms. Bibby has done for the community. She constantly strives to make Mariposa safer, stronger, and more united. I am proud to honor and thank Mariposa County District Three Supervisor Janet Bibby for her many years of public and community service.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the President's assertion last week, the Islamic State is Islamic and it is a State, or at least it has all the attributes of a State. It is precisely this combination that makes it so dangerous, a messianic and clearly stated intention to wage jihad on American soil and the resources and equipment to do so.

In response to this danger, the President proposes that the United States wage a continuing air war against the Islamic State, but to avoid any commitment of ground forces. Instead, he seeks to use vetted elements of the Free Syrian Army as the American proxy force and proposes to arm and train them for that purpose.

This raises two major concerns. First, many elements of the Free Syrian Army have a long history of collaborating with the Islamic State. Its principal mission is to destroy the Syrian Government, which though utterly despotic, is currently fighting the Islamic State. We court a very real risk that this equipment will either be turned against Syria as it fights the IS, or turned over to the IS as elements of Iraqi Security Forces recently did.

Second, committing insufficient force in any conflict is self- defeating, and air strikes alone cannot win a war. For 13 years, the brave young Americans who stepped forward to defend our country after 9/11 have found themselves hamstrung by political correctness on the battlefield, perilously commingled with hostile forces, endangered by rules of engagement that undermine their ability to defend themselves, and denied the full resources and commitment of our country.

We are in precarious times, with an administration that either cannot or will not learn from the mistakes of the past. Until we are prepared to put the full might and resources of our Nation behind a war against the Islamic State, we can at least act to contain IS advances, protect our people, and restore

the martial strength and national will that will certainly be needed in the years ahead.

First, I believe the President is correct to order selected air strikes in tactical support of resistance forces where they are actively engaged against the IS. Where we can turn the tide of battle in these engagements, we must. And the immediate destruction of oil fields under IS control is vital to reduce the resources that it is currently converting to cash.

Second, it is appropriate to take immediate, significant, and focused retaliatory strikes against the Islamic State in response to specific acts that it commits against American interests. This is the Reagan model in Libya, and it worked.

Third, the direct threat posed to the United States by the IS is not on Syrian or Iraqi soil, but on American soil. The Islamic State has been explicit in declaring its intention to insert a Fifth Column within our borders and wage jihad on Americans. For far too long we have ignored the threat posed by a wide open southern border, lax enforcement on the northern border, and nonenforcement of visa overstays. And this neglect needs to stop now. We must secure our borders, enforce the time limits on visas, and change the law to revoke the passports of any American who takes up arms for the Islamic State.

Fourth, we must recognize that the improving world situation that justified reducing military spending in recent years has now reversed, and so must our priorities. The world is now becoming more dangerous and unstable, and our military budget must be adjusted to meet that growing danger. Our Nation's weakened fiscal condition requires a comprehensive review of our spending priorities as a matter of vital national security.

Fifth, we must assure that our only reliable ally in the Middle East, Israel, has all the equipment and supplies and assistance it may need in coming years, and that it will have the unqualified support of the United States when it must take action for its own security.

Mr. Speaker, Islamic fascism is now advancing into a vacuum that many past blunders have created, the worst of them being to underestimate the terrible demands that war requires. These are mistakes we can no longer afford to make. Confronting the rise of European fascism in the 1930s, Churchill counseled measured resistance where possible, while undertaking utmost martial preparation. That advice lights our path that we must take today.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, all of us recognize the threat posed to our Nation by the Islamic State. The question before us is whether to arm and train supposedly carefully vetted elements of the Free Syrian Army as a proxy ground force.

I respect the intentions of the supporters, but this proposal runs a great risk of backfiring.

The FSA is a marriage of convenience among many Islamic factions that have a long history of collaborating with the Islamic State. The singular purpose of the FSA is not to destroy the Islamic State. It exists to destroy the Syrian Government that is now actively fighting against the Islamic State.

The equipment we provide to the FSA could easily be turned against the Syrian Government, which, despite all of its despotic tendencies, is at least at war with the IS right now, and we would weaken our overall strategic position. Or this equipment could be turned over to the Islamic State, as we watched carefully vetted Iraqi security forces recently do. In fact, that is the reason the Islamic State is armed to the teeth with American equipment.

Neither we nor the world can afford more blunders or miscalculations in this region. We should have learned by now that alliances in the Islamic Middle East are in constant flux. An ally today is a sworn enemy tomorrow. In fact, often our allies are our enemies.

After I was elected, the first man killed from my district in Iraq, Army Specialist Jeremiah McCleery, died when ``carefully vetted'' Iraqi soldiers turned their American-provided weapons on him.

The most recent fatality from my district, Marine Staff Sergeant Sky Mote, died when ``carefully vetted'' Afghan police turned their American-provided weapons on him.

Madam Speaker, our consistent experience in this region should be screaming this warning at us. We are making a big mistake.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution, Gold Trail chapter and Sierra Amador chapter, as they celebrate the two hundred twenty-seventh anniversary of the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America.

The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution was founded in 1890 with the mission of promoting historic preservation, education, and patriotism.

The Gold Trail and Sierra Amador chapters include members across California's fourth district. The Gold Trail chapter has 154 members-- some of whom are direct descendants of the Founding Fathers--residing in Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln, Loomis, Granite Bay, and Folsom. The Sierra Amador chapter has more than 70 members residing in Amador, Calaveras, and surrounding counties.

I rise to join the Gold Trail and Sierra Amador chapters of the Daughters of the American Revolution in observing ``Constitution Week'' from September 17 through September 23. This week will be dedicated to paying tribute to our foundational document and the freedom that it continues to enshrine two hundred twenty-seven years after its drafting.

Mr. Speaker, Daniel Webster charged that our nation must ``Hold on . . . to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.'' It is groups like the Gold Trail and Sierra Amador chapters who are heeding Webster's charge and preserving the Constitution for future generations.

The Constitution of the United States of America ensures through the written law that the individual liberties of all Americans are protected and preserved, and it is my privilege to rise in recognition of the Gold Trail and Sierra Amador chapters' efforts to honor this anniversary with a weeklong tribute.

Mr. Speaker, we are watching the rise of Islamic fascism on a scale unprecedented in modern times. It may be wrapped in different symbols and trace genealogy through a different line, but at its core, it is fascism. Listen to its virulent anti-Semitism, the explicit promise of genocide against Israel, the utter rejection-- indeed, disdain--for fundamental principles of democracy and human rights and justice. There can be no doubt what is happening.

European fascism might have consumed all of Europe except for one gritty holdout: for more than a year Great Britain stood in the breach. Had it fallen, the consequences would have been unthinkable.

Today, one gritty holdout stands against the rise of Islamic fascism in the Middle East. Israel is the only island of democracy and civilization left in that region, and it is standing alone and in the breach.

The current conflict between Israel and Hamas offers a clear distinction between good and evil.

Israel took control of the Gaza Strip as a result of the Six-Day War in 1967. It granted self-governance to the region in 1994, and in 2005, unilaterally withdrew its forces.

The resulting Hamas government has since militarized Gaza and used it as a launching site for continuing and escalating attacks against the civilian Israeli population, with the avowed objective of wiping Israel off the map.

The Arab Spring welcomed by the Obama administration brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt. During its brief tenure, it opened a road for the mass importation of weapons to Hamas. These weapons, and others smuggled in by sea, were strategically placed in schools and hospitals and fired upon Israeli cities without provocation.

As Churchill once said of Britain: Israel did everything it could to secure peace. Perhaps it did too much.

The result was thousands of rocket attacks and many terrorist incursions by Hamas aimed solely at the civilian population. Israel finally did what any civilization must do under such circumstances: it finally fought back.

Hamas has deliberately staged its attacks from hospitals, schools, and mosques, using children as human shields, leaving the Israelis the Hobson's choice of enduring the killing of their own population or taking out the instruments of destruction that are deliberately sited in schools and hospitals. They have chosen to defend themselves.

There is absolutely no doubt of Hamas' objectives and that of its allies: they have been crystal clear and unwavering on their intention to destroy Israel and kill every Israeli. They seek to eradicate the Jewish homeland, whose history in the region stretches back more than 3,000 years.

Their allies have been intent on annihilating every Christian and Jew in the Middle East, and they are well on their way toward achieving this goal. It would be the height of naivete to believe that it will stop. Yet, this administration, and many on the Left, seem to view the two sides as moral equivalents. Many on the Left even portray Israel as the aggressor.

Israel has made the decision to by force demilitarize Gaza for its own survival. It is now making serious progress and degrading Hamas' ability to make war. That is the only true path to peace.

Yet, the Obama administration is now working to halt Israel's progress and allow Hamas the time to resupply and regroup and resume its attacks. This serves only the objectives of Hamas and is a prescription for prolonged war and bloodshed.

Hamas has broken every cease-fire it has agreed to, and Israel has abided by every cease-fire, often holding return fire for hours after Hamas has broken these accords. There is no reason to believe that Hamas will abide by future cease-fires the moment it has recovered its war-making capabilities.

Why would this administration interfere in this manner, the effect of which is to take sides against the only pro-Western regime left in the Middle East?

Today, all that stands between a peaceful and free world and a fanatical fascist caliphate stretching from the Bosphorus to North Africa is the state of Israel and the influence of the Western democracies, particularly that of the United States.

In 1929, Churchill warned of Britain's irresolution in the Middle East. He said: ``Any appearance of lack of willpower on the part of the British government or of lack of confidence in its mission in these countries blows like a draught of air on the dull, fierce embers.''

Mr. Speaker, at this perilous hour, let us not repeat the mistakes of history.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, the Endangered Species Act serves a great cause, to prevent the extinction of any species because of human activity, but as Eric Hoffer warned:

Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business,

and eventually degenerates into a racket.

Unfortunately, in the last 4 years, the ESA has become the basis for an explosion of lawsuits seeking to force hundreds of new species listings. Many of these suits are funded at taxpayers' expense, which in turn require Federal, State, and local agencies to spend even more taxpayer money to respond.

In northern California last month, this kind of litigation resulted in designating 2 million acres of the Sierra as critical habitat for three amphibians, despite overwhelming evidence that human activity is not to blame. The cause of the decline is nonnative predators and a virus affecting all amphibian species in the region.

The Natural Resources Committee has heard hours of testimony of how these decisions are based on highly questionable data from advocacy groups that include major mathematical errors, rank speculation, and selective suppression of data in order to arrive at predetermined conclusions.

This measure before us begins to address these abuses. It requires that supporting data be readily available to the general public, thus assuring greater scrutiny, and it requires that the government use the best available science and data from all sources.

It addresses the litigation crisis by requiring that legal costs be tracked and publicly reported, and it conforms those costs to the Equal Access to Justice Act that prevents extravagant claims for legal fees.

Louis Brandeis said that sunlight is the best of disinfectants. This bill places the data for implementing the ESA back into the sunlight where it can be fully scrutinized, and it places a modicum of restraint on the legal fees sought by out-of-control litigants.

Mr. Speaker, wherever I go, people express a growing anger over the illegal immigration that is overwhelming our southern border.

People ask me:

``How can we talk about securing the border in Ukraine or Iraq while our own border is wide open?''

``How can we talk about supporting the population of Central America when we are nearly $18 trillion in debt?''

``How can we talk about giving jobs to millions of illegal immigrants when fewer Americans are working today than when this so-called recovery began?''

They ask: ``If the Federal Government can't defend our own border, what good is it?''

Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer them. The fact is, our southern border is wide open. It is practically undefended, and everybody knows it.

The many thousands streaming across it know that if they break our laws and enter our country illegally, they will be rewarded with free food, clothing, housing, medical care, transportation, legal representation, and relocation, all at the expense of struggling American families.

Ninety-five percent of them believe they will get ``permiso'' to stay and, at the moment, they are right.

Until we fundamentally change this reality, the mass incursion of our borders will continue, and our Nation's sovereignty will slowly fade away.

The American people are awakening to the danger that illegal immigration poses to our country. It is crowding out millions of jobs desperately needed by American workers. It is overwhelming our schools, our hospitals, our courts, law enforcement, prisons, and our local and State budgets.

Perhaps worst of all, it is undermining the process of legal immigration upon which our country is founded. Why should anyone go to the expense and trouble of obeying our immigration laws when they can reap rich rewards simply by defying them?

This administration has actively encouraged this crisis with its promises of amnesty, and it now needs another $4 billion to feed, clothe, and house this new surge. Conspicuously lacking from the President's proposal is any serious effort at enforcement or deportation.

The advocates of illegal immigration tell us we need comprehensive immigration reform, but what they really mean is extending some form of amnesty to those now illegally in this country. Yet, it is precisely these promises of amnesty that are causing and encouraging the mass migration we are now seeing.

Any short-term measure this House approves must include provisions:

First, to rescind the President's unlawful Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals order that has clearly encouraged the current surge;

Second, to detain all of these new arrivals while expedited deportation hearings proceed;

Third, to provide unrestricted access for law enforcement to all Federal lands at the border;

And fourth, to activate the National Guard in whatever numbers are necessary to secure our southern border now.

Once the immediate tide has been turned back, it is imperative that existing laws are enforced before any new laws are considered, including:

Rigorous enforcement of sanctions against any employer who hires an illegal immigrant;

Completion of the border fence that was authorized in 2006;

Deportation of any illegal immigrant who comes into contact with law enforcement or who illegally applies for government assistance; and

Resumption of Federal cooperation with local and State law enforcement agencies to ensure enforcement of our immigration law.

If we are not willing to enforce our current laws, there is no reason to believe that any future laws will be enforced. And until we enforce them, we really can't accurately assess what changes might be needed.

The people with whom I talk are tired of excuses. They are tired of promises of future reforms. They want to see our current laws enforced and our border secured, and every act of this House should be focused on pressuring the President to do so.

History is shouting this warning at us: that nations that either cannot or will not defend their borders aren't around very long.

Let that not be the legacy of this administration, and let it not be the epitaph of the American Republic.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1192 would redesignate Mammoth Peak in Yosemite National Park as Mount Jessie Benton Fremont.

The bill is brought to us by a group of local park enthusiasts and historians, with the support of the El Dorado County Historical Society. Its purpose is to recognize this pioneer who played a significant role in establishing Yosemite National Park.

Jessie Benton Fremont was the daughter of U.S. Senator Thomas Hart Benton, a prominent Democrat who was a leading proponent of the Nation's westward expansion. In 1841, she married John C. Fremont, a prominent Republican, an American military officer, explorer, and-- later--a Presidential candidate.

She traveled to California in 1849 and, soon thereafter, became one of the most influential advocates for establishing Yosemite National Park.

When we think of Yosemite, we think of John Muir. Ironically, John Muir's first visit to the park didn't occur until 4 years after the park was established. It only came to his attention, as it came to the attention of so many, because Jessie Benton Fremont saw the beauty of the valley, she appreciated its importance, and she began a passionate crusade to preserve it for the American people to enjoy.

Jessie Benton Fremont was herself a gifted writer, and she used her skill to transform her husband's travel and exploration into popular narratives that were used by pioneers to guide their route west.

After she came to California in 1849, Yosemite became her passion. She published many accounts of the valley and

hosted scores of dignitaries to see its wonders.

It was her deep love of Yosemite, coupled with her ceaseless agitation, her boundless energy, and her political connections in both parties that set in motion and drove the events that led to Congress passing, and President Abraham Lincoln signing, the Yosemite Grant Act 150 years ago.

Remember, she did all of this in an age when women were expected to be seen and not heard. She set an example of leadership that gave inspiration and guidance to the next generation that ultimately produced the movement toward women's suffrage.

The Yosemite Grant Act was revolutionary in its day. It was the first time in the Nation's history that land had been set aside, in the words of the Act, ``on the express condition that the premises shall be held for public use, resort, and recreation . . . for all time.''

Now, this act led ultimately to the creation of the National Park Service in 1916 and to the preservation of so many other landscapes for the American people to enjoy for their use and resort and recreation.

The Norman and Plantagenet kings of old set aside vast tracts of land as their exclusive preserve, in which only a select few, with their blessing, could enjoy. The Yosemite grant was the very opposite of that. It set aside the most beautiful land in the Nation entirely for the people.

The current name of the peak, Mammoth Peak, has absolutely no historical significance. The name was originally conferred on that peak because it was big. That is it.

Furthermore, this naming will eliminate a constant source of confusion with Mammoth Mountain, a place that we have all heard of. That is the major ski resort just a few hours outside of Yosemite National Park. The Mammoth Peak we are referring to is inside Yosemite, and if you find that confusing, well, so too do many tourists.

The fine point of the matter comes down to this: other persons who had lesser or comparable roles in establishing Yosemite are all commemorated by attaching their names to prominent features of the park--Horace Greeley, Carlton Watkins, Thomas Starr King, and U.S. Senators John Conness and Edward Baker.

The name of the dynamic force that moved all of those people, Jessie Benton Fremont, is nowhere to be found on the names of features within the park. This is a century-and-a-half oversight that we can correct today by passing H.R. 1192.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires energy companies of all kinds to fund their own research and development programs, rather than continuing to require taxpayers to subsidize this activity to the tune of $3.1 billion.

If we are serious about an all-of-the-above energy policy, we have got to stop using taxpayer money to pick winners and losers in the energy industry and start requiring every energy technology to compete on its own merits.

For too long, we have suffered from the conceit that politicians can make better energy investments with taxpayer money than investors can with their own money. It is this conceit that has produced a long line of scandals, best illustrated by the Solyndra fiasco.

This research doesn't even benefit the common good by placing these discoveries in the public domain. Any discoveries, although they are financed by the public, are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the private companies that received these public funds.

Public costs, private benefit--that is called corporate welfare. That is what these energy subsidies amount to.

My amendment protects taxpayers from being forced into paying the research and development budgets of these companies. It gets government out of the energy business and requires all energy companies and all energy technologies to compete equally on their own merits and with their own funds.

Last year, when we debated similar amendments, we heard about all of the technological breakthroughs financed by the Federal Government, from railroads to the Internet, and we heard promises of future breakthroughs from this massive expenditure of Federal funds.

Well, I freely recognize that, if you hand over billions of dollars of public subsidies to private business, those particular private businesses will do very well. I freely recognize that some of these dollars will produce breakthroughs that will then be owned by these private companies, and they will do extremely well.

What the advocates of these subsidies fail to consider is the vast dilemma between the seen and the unseen, the immediate effects that you can clearly see and the unintended effects that cannot be seen.

In this case, what we don't see clearly is the opportunity cost of these subsidies. Investors, using their own money, are very focused on making investments based on the highest economic return of these dollars. Politicians, using other people's money, make investment based on the highest political return of these dollars. This is the principal difference between Apple computer and Solyndra or between FedEx and the post office.

These public subsidies, in effect, take dollars that would have naturally flowed into the most effective and promising technologies and diverts them into those that are politically favored.

Dollar for dollar, this minimizes our energy potential, rather than maximizing it. For example, hydraulic fracking--it has revolutionized the fossil fuels industry. It offers us the very real potential of becoming energy independent.

Well, after the 1973 oil embargo, the Federal Government began heavily subsidizing research on this technology. How did it work out? According to CNN:

Between 1978 and 2000, the Federal Government spent about

$1.5 billion on oil and gas production research, much of it

on extracting fuel from shale, according to a 2001 report

from the National Academy of Sciences, but the process

remained expensive, and research faded as oil prices came

back down in the 1980s. By the 1990s, private industry began

to step back into the business with new technologies with

lower costs, leading to today's boom.

We were told last year that the little companies don't have the capital to develop their big ideas. Well, that is why there are private investors who can accurately evaluate those ideas and invest in the best of them.

Government investment doesn't do that very well or efficiently, and it is time we had done with it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I forgive my friend from Ohio for not being up on California history. The fact is California exists because it had the freedom to develop its vast natural resources. It is government intervention that has caused this economy to decline dramatically.

Both of my friends miss the point. Government simply doesn't make these investments as wisely as private investors who are using their own money. Private investors invest to the highest economic value of a dollar; politicians invest to get the highest political return.

The gentlewoman is correct in one respect: California is the home of Solyndra and many, many other failed government investments in recent years. It is the private investors who took up the research on hydraulic fracturing after government investments failed that have produced the technologies that are giving us the economic boom in States like North Dakota that actually have the freedom to develop their resources on public lands.

It is simply a question of efficiency, a question of waste, and a question of right and wrong. Let's stop picking winners and losers in the marketplace and let the investors use their own money to make these research and development decisions.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, ever since 1835, the rules of the House have forbidden spending money except for purposes authorized by law. Yet last year, the eleven appropriations bills reported out of the House Appropriations Committee contained over $350 billion in spending on unauthorized programs. The rule against unauthorized spending cannot be enforced because it is always waived by the resolutions that bring these appropriations to the floor.

The bill before us today contains $24 billion in such unauthorized spending for programs that have not been reviewed by the authorizing committees since as far back as 1980. That was Jimmy Carter's last year in office.

Now, I am sure that some of these programs are valuable and worthy of taxpayer dollars, but surely, others are not. The fact that they have not been authorized in as much as 35 years ought to warn us to be at least a little more careful about continuing to fund them.

Rather than reviewing our spending decisions and making tough choices about spending priorities, Congress simply rubberstamps these programs out of habit. It is no wonder we are so deeply in debt with so little to show for it. My amendment does not defund these unauthorized programs, as the House rules would require. It simply freezes spending on them at last year's levels.

The cuts contained in this amendment total just $121 million, which is about 0.036 percent of the total spending in this bill.

If year after year, the authorizing committees haven't found these programs worth the time to reauthorize, then maybe that is just nature's way of telling us they aren't worth the money we are shoveling at them either.

It is the proper role of the House of Representatives to control the purse strings of our government. But we do a disservice to our constituents when we allow this kind of spending growth to occur on autopilot, absent any oversight or congressional authorization.

I look forward to the day when Congress will again assert its constitutional prerogative to control Federal spending and enforce its own rules to prohibit spending blindly on unauthorized programs.

However, in the meantime, adopting this amendment will merely freeze the spending in these unauthorized programs, shaving just 0.036 percent of this appropriation. By freezing that spending on unauthorized programs, I hope that will be a small symbolic step toward reclaiming the House's responsibility to act as a watchdog over the Treasury.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I can forgive my colleague from Ohio for misstating California's history as she did earlier today, but I cannot excuse her for misstating the recent history that we were all quite familiar with.

I would remind the gentlewoman that this House passed three appropriations bills over to the Senate funding the entire government last year, including a lot of things that we would like to reform, but we agreed to fund all of those spending with one exception.

We asked for a 1-year delay in the train wreck that has become ObamaCare. I think the American people can see that that was a realistic request. Unfortunately, the Senate chose not to act. That is what caused the government to seize up and to shut down.

Now, I also want to correct the gentlelady in her suggestion that, somehow, this is motivated because I don't like energy. I love energy, and I want to see it efficiently researched, and that is best done by the private sector using its own money, rather than politicians using other people's money to reward politically well-connected companies.

I would simply ask the gentlewoman this: If these programs were all so worthwhile, why is it that the authorizing committees have not bothered to reauthorize them in a span of up to 35 years?

I suggest that fact speaks for itself. Until these programs are properly reviewed and reauthorized, all I am asking is we don't keep increasing their budgets; we freeze them until the authorizing committees review them and reauthorize them.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, we rise today to honor one of our nation's greatest landmarks, Yosemite National Park. I am proud to be joined by: Rep. LaMalfa, Rep. Huffman, Rep. Garamendi, Rep. Thompson, Rep. Matsui, Rep. Bera, Rep. Cook, Rep. McNerney, Rep. Denham, Rep. George Miller, Rep. Speier, Rep. Swalwell, Rep. Costa, Rep. Honda, Rep. Eshoo, Rep. Lofgren, Rep. Farr, Rep. Valadao, Rep. Nunes, Rep. McCarthy, Rep. Capps, Rep. Brownley, Rep. Chu, Rep. Schiff, Rep. Caardenas, Rep. Sherman, Rep. Gary Miller, Rep. Napolitano, Rep. Waxman, Rep. Becerra, Rep. Negrete McLeod, Rep. Ruiz, Rep. Bass, Rep. Linda Saanchez, Rep. Royce, Rep. Roybal-Allard, Rep. Takano, Rep. Calvert, Rep. Hahn, Rep. Campbell, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, Rep. Lowenthal, Rep. Rohrabacher, Rep. Issa, Rep. Hunter, Rep. Vargas, Rep. Peters, and Rep. Davis.

This year marks the 150th anniversary of President Lincoln's Yosemite Grant Act, creating, on June 30, 1864, the earliest parts of what would grow into the beautiful national park that we have today.

In the midst of the Civil War, President Lincoln took the unprecedented step of setting aside this scenic tract of wilderness in central California for public use and recreation. The creation of this first public park, preserved for the enjoyment of the public, served as the catalyst for the creation of a vast system of lands that provide recreational opportunities across the country, including more than 400 national parks.

Yosemite's development into a national park made it one of the nation's first travel destinations. Countless millions of Americans have visited the park over the last 150 years to enjoy the scenic beauty of nature. More than just idle viewing, Yosemite's heritage includes a dedication to camping and hiking that allows park visitors to immerse themselves in one of the American people's greatest treasures. Providing these various recreational activities, that so greatly enhance the visitor experience, is the lifeblood of the surrounding foothill communities.

Today, Yosemite National Park receives over 4 million annual visitors. They come from around the world to see the beauty and majesty of our nation. This includes Yosemite's two Wild and Scenic Rivers, the Tuolumne and the Merced; over 800 miles of trails, including the renowned Pacific Crest Trail and the John Muir Trail; the awe-inspiring scenery created by the area's rich volcanic and glacial history; and the groves of Giant Sequoia trees.

The park includes parts of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and contains several of the highest peaks in North America. Some of the world's most spectacular and unique geologic formations exist in Yosemite National Park, including renowned formations such as Half Dome, Sentinel Dome, El Capitan, Glacier Point and the Royal Arches. Where the rivers wind through these impressive geological formations, there are some of the world's most majestic waterfalls: Yosemite Falls, Snow Creek Falls, Sentinel Falls, Bridalveil Fall, Nevada Fall, and Waterwheel Falls, to name a few.

Mr. Speaker, Yosemite National Park is truly one of our nation's greatest treasures and we ask all the Members of this body to join us in celebrating its past and committing to preserving its future.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment forbids defense dollars from being spent to fund two executive orders and several other provisions of law that require the military to squander billions of dollars on so-called green energy.

For example, according to the GAO, the Navy has spent as much as $150 per gallon for jet fuel. In 2012, the Navy purchased 450,000 gallons of biofuel for its so-called green fleet at the cost of $26.60 per gallon, at a time when conventional petroleum fuel cost just $2.50.

What taxpayer in his right mind would pay $26.60 per gallon to fill up his car when, next door, they are selling it for $2.50? Yet that is precisely what our Armed Forces are ordered to do--except they are not just filling up their cars, they are filling up entire ships and aircraft, and this all comes out of our precious defense dollars.

The Air Force paid $59 per gallon for 11,000 gallons of biofuel in 2012--10 times more than regular jet fuel.

It is not just biofuels. The Pentagon expects to purchase 1,500 Chevy Volts at a subsidized price of $40,000 apiece and a production price of $90,000 apiece, paid for by other subsidies. As Senator Coburn's office points out:

Each one of these $40,000 Chevy Volts represents the choice

not to provide an entire infantry platoon with all new rifles

or 50,000 rounds of ammunition that cannot be used for

realistic training.

Under these green energy mandates, the Army and Navy have been required to install solar arrays at various facilities. At Naval Station Norfolk, the Navy spent $21 million to install a 10-acre solar array, which will supply a grand total of 2 percent of the base's electricity.

According to the inspector general's office, this project will save enough money to pay for itself in only 447 years. Of course, solar panels only last about 25 years.

In Alaska, the Pentagon was ordered to convert three radar stations from diesel fuel to wind turbine energy. The Air Force claimed it will take 15 years to pay for itself, but auditors found that the generators produce only ``sporadic, unusable power,'' and the inspector general charged that the Air Force claim was completely unsubstantiated.

As of 2013, the Defense Department had at least 680 such projects, including 357 solar, 29 wind, and 289 thermal energy projects.

There are several arguments that we hear for this mandate. One of them is it is going to save us money, but as you can see, these orders are running up huge costs. We don't know exactly how much because, as the GAO said:

There is currently no comprehensive inventory of which

Federal agencies are implementing renewable energy-related

initiatives and the types of initiatives they are

implementing.

Outside estimates are as much as $7 billion for the Department of Defense for this year, a figure that will only grow each year.

We are told it is to move our Armed Forces toward energy independence from hostile foreign sources. This is from an administration that has obstructed every effort to develop America's vast oil shale reserves that would make Saudi Arabia look like a petroleum pauper. The XL Keystone pipeline, by itself, would bring a half-million barrels of Canadian crude a day into this country.

Finally, we are told this is all a grand strategy to protect us from climate change, which the Secretary of State has called as big a threat as terrorism. Even if it were possible to wage an environmentally- sensitive war--which I doubt--I think there is a good chance that climate will continue to change, as it has that past 4 billion years, whether or not we waste our defense dollars to pay for this quixotic venture.

This explanation does reveal the real reason for this folly. This is an ideological crusade imposed on our military that will pointlessly consume billions of defense dollars, mainly to keep money flowing to politically well-connected green energy companies that can't get anybody else to buy their products.

These green activists are willing to squander the resources of our military to do so. This is a travesty that we can end here and now with this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that forcing the military to pay $26.60 per gallon for fuel that can be obtained for $2.50 a gallon isn't about flexibility. It is about insanity, and it is time that we put an end to this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of former Mayor of Truckee, California, Ron Florian.

Mayor Florian's career as a public servant was forged out of love for his community. He was born in Sacramento and moved to Truckee in 1992 to follow in his father's footsteps as a grocer. Mayor Florian's work as President of the Truckee Rotary is worthy of note; through his membership in the Rotary Club, Ron gained access to a new way to serve those around him. While he cared deeply about these activities, they did not define him. Ron was a man characterized by an energetic spirit, quick wit, and a boundless capacity for generosity.

Ron Florian took his commitment to service further when he served two terms on the Truckee Town Council and two terms as Mayor. During his time on the Council, Ron proved instrumental in establishing the Truckee Police Department and constructing the Highway 267 Bypass. He consistently worked to make Truckee safer, stronger, and more united. Ron understood what it means to be a part of a community bigger than oneself.

Mayor Florian enjoyed doing the people's work and loved working side by side with the citizens of Truckee. Even in the instance that he and his colleagues disagreed, Ron considered them friends rather than adversaries. While he received numerous accolades, Ron consistently attributed the accomplishments to his staff, who he believed deserved credit for all the heavy lifting. He loved and valued them, just as he loved and valued the town they all served together. Ron's grace, wit, and sense of humor will surely be missed.

Ron and his lovely wife, Patti, fulfilled their dream of owning a business together when Florian's Fine Wines & Specialty Foods opened its doors in 1999. Through his business, Ron continued to serve and unite the town of Truckee, with Florian's becoming a local meeting place.

One of Ron's greatest gifts was his commitment to shaping the next generation. Ron's legacy lives on in the lives that he touched, and it is my privilege to rise in recognition of his many achievements and contributions to Truckee.