Tom McClintock

“I want the House to pass this bill. It swaps land between Yosemite National Park and Stanislaus National Forest. This fixes confusing borders, helps manage the land better, and protects local ranchers who graze their cattle there.”

“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.”

“Capitalism works because people succeed by helping their neighbors. Socialism is the opposite. It uses government force to take what one person earns and give it to someone else. Freedom lets people make their own choices, but socialism hurts everyone.”

“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.”

“I support this budget resolution, even though this is not how the process should work. We must use it to bypass Senate Democrats, buy more weapons for our military, and secure our elections.”

“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.”

“Zohran Mamdani recently attacked America as racist, unfair, and broken. He is wrong. America welcomes immigrants, but we must enforce our immigration laws and protect our borders. He also pushes socialism, which takes away our freedom and ruins countries. Free enterprise has made Americans richer and freer than the rest of the world. We must choose freedom over big government.”

“Mr. Speaker, on the eve of our Nation’s 250th birthday, Zohran Mamdani sat at George Washington’s desk and painted a dystopian picture of America: an oligarchy based on exploitation, discrimination, nativism, and bondage. Stripping away the anti-American rhetoric, he seemed to make three general points: First, that America is so racist and xenophobic that many insist it ``belongs only to those with the right accent or the right shade of skin.’’ Yet, even as he spoke these words, foreign soccer fans with every accent and skin shade flooded social media to tell of their delight at the openness, hospitality, prosperity, happiness, abundance, and big-heartedness of middle America. Indeed, America welcomes more foreign immigrants than any other country in the world, but we insist that those who come to America do so with a sincere desire to become loyal Americans, to adopt a common language, a common culture, and a common appreciation of American constitutional principles and traditions, and to raise their children to revere and appreciate this country. It is called assimilation. It is why we have immigration laws. That is the only way to build one great Nation and one great people from all the nations and people of the world. Illegal immigration destroys that process. Mamdani, like so many on the left, obstruct our immigration laws and vilify those who enforce them. Yet, if we don’t enforce our immigration laws, then we have no immigration laws. Without immigration laws, we have no border. Without a border, we have no country. Is it possible Mamdani does not understand this or is this his ultimate aim? His second point is that American exceptionalism derives not from the principles of liberty proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, but, rather, that these principles can be exchanged for others, and Mr. Mamdani has one in mind--socialism. However, freedom and socialism are two antithetical and incompatible things. Our fundamental natural rights as human beings come to us either from God or from government. If from God--the right to chart our own course through life, develop our own talents, supply our own industry, and enjoy the fruit of our own labors--they are a birthright and are inalienable. If these rights come from government, then they can be extended or withdrawn at the whim of those in power. Mr. Mamdani and his friends will decide how much you may earn, where and how you can live, which groups will receive the favors of government and which will be denied them, who must live under the law and who can live above it, even the temperature that you must set your thermostat. Wherever the socialists take control, we see this fundamental change, and there is nothing exceptional about it. It is the consistent product of socialist regimes: confiscatory taxes, chronic shortages of basic necessities, rampant homelessness, rising crime, bitter racial strife, failing schools, shuttered businesses, and ultimately, fleeing families. His third point is that our founding principles create inequalities so vast that in America ``children go to sleep hungry, while the world’s first trillionaire hungers for more.’’ Well, no one starves in America. Indeed, the poorest Americans today are wealthier than the vast majority of mankind. Yes, in America extraordinary individuals, including legal immigrants, can achieve extraordinary success. The left loves to dehumanize them as oligarchs. Their vast fortunes were made because consumers found value in their products and freely bought them. They have provided mankind with quantum leaps in technological progress that in turn produced the jobs and goods and services that provide Americans with a prosperity and standard of living unparalleled throughout the world. As John F. Kennedy reminded us: ``A rising tide lifts all boats.’’ The true oligarchs are the socialists who use the power of government to plunder the earnings of productive Americans in order to enrich themselves and their acolytes. As Winston Churchill warned: ``The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.’’ Mr. Speaker, if America follows Mr. Mamdani, it will not be the first civilization to succumb to the siren song of a benevolent, all-powerful government, but every civilization that has done so has awakened one morning to discover that the benevolence is gone and that the all- powerful government remains. The American Founders feared that one day a generation might emerge that has lost the memory of freedom. Let that not be the legacy of our generation.”