February 2012

Response San Francisco Chronicle

By Tom McClintock on February 22, 2012

I have submitted a shorter letter responding to the Chronicle's front-page article by Carolyn Lochhead ("Central Valley reps bill would upend water rights," February 17, 2012), but believe the inaccuracies and omissions in it are so stark that it deserves a more detailed reply.

"Representatives from the Central Valley pushed legislation through a House committee Thursday that would upend the state's system of water rights, deploying the federal government to extract water from Northern California farms, fisheries and cities to send to farmers in the valley."

Title IV of the measure specifically reaffirms and guarantees the state's system of water rights and brings the full force of federal law to protect those rights.
  
Indeed, the Northern California Water Association, representing the very water users Ms. Lochhead contends would have their rights "upended" and their water "extracted" strongly supports the bill.  It writes:

 "The bill, if enacted, now contains provisions that would not only protect the interests of senior water rights holders in the Sacramento Valley, but would also provide significant, material water policy improvements to current federal law.  The bill, if enacted, would provide an unprecedented federal statutory express recognition of, and commitment to, California's state water rights priority system and area of origin protections.  This is important for the region to provide sustainable water supplies for productive farmlands, wildlife refuges, and managed wetlands, cities and rural communities, recreation, and meandering rivers that support important fisheries."

Vote Note HR 3630 -Payroll Tax Cut and Spending Increases

By Staff on February 17, 2012

HR 3630 - Payroll Tax Cut and Spending Increases: NO.  The tragedy of George W. Bush is not that he cut taxes, but that he refused to cut spending at the same time.  This bill continues that folly by extending the Social Security payroll tax cut, while refusing to cut the spending that it pays for.  The bill adds $101 billion to the deficit this year and further undermines the Social Security system's solvency.  Sadly, the House ignores HR 3551 that would permanently give every American the choice of taking the tax relief and delaying retirement by one month, an option that would pay for itself and protect Social Security's finances.  When these tax relief measures were initiated in December, 2010, I expected the incoming majority to reduce spending commensurately.  It has not, and we are now another year closer to a sovereign debt crisis like that which now convulses Greece.

Statement on Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute- House Committee on Natural Resources

By admin on February 17, 2012

Mr. Chairman,

As I said in my opening statement, this amendment has been painstakingly negotiated and crafted over a period of eight months, in response to the concerns raised over the security of senior water rights in Northern California. 

The concern, which we took very seriously, involves the interaction of California's tangled state and federal jurisdictions.  The concern was that a change in federal law could trigger adverse state actions affecting those senior water rights holders.  And California is notorious for abridging the property rights of its citizens.

As I said during the hearing on June 13th, "no legislation will clear this subcommittee that in any way undermines local area of origin water rights as long as I have anything to say about it." This amendment not only makes good on that promise, but materially strengthens those rights.

During those eight months, we consulted and negotiated with over 60 Northern and Central California water agencies and actually achieved a peaceful settlement of longstanding disputes that have simmered too long among them.

Opening Statement on HR 1837- House Committee on Natural Resources

By admin on February 17, 2012

Mr. Chairman:

We are all aware of the human and economic tragedy that occurred in California's Central Valley in 2009 and 2010 when hundreds of billions of gallons of contracted water were diverted to the ocean in the name of the Delta Smelt. 

This policy fallowed between a quarter million and a half million acres of some of the most productive farmland in America, threw thousands of hard-working families into unemployment, devastated communities throughout the region and created the spectacle of food lines handing out carrots imported from China in a region which had just a year before produced much of the fruits and vegetables in the United States.

In the 111th Congress, the then-minority Republicans on the sub-committee asked repeatedly for hearings to address this catastrophe to no avail.  Finally, we held an informal field hearing where we heard first hand of the human suffering these policies caused.  Last year, we returned to hold a formal hearing to take testimony on what could be done to correct this disaster.

HR 3521 - Line Item Veto

By Staff on February 14, 2012

House Chamber remarks by Congressman Tom McClintock in support of HR 3521 - Line Item Veto

Mr. Chairman:

This bill presents us with a simple question: "It is possible - just possible - that from time to time Congress has passed a spending bill or two that ought to have had greater scrutiny?"  The answer to this question might elude some members of the House, but I assure them it is self-evident to everybody else.

A country whose finances are as far out of control as ours suffers not from too many checks and balances on spending, but from too few.

Opponents discuss this bill as if it were a new and radical idea.  The fact is, many states operate with a genuine line item veto and have for generations.  

For those states, it has been an important tool to control their spending, and those provisions are far more stringent than what is proposed here.

 In conformance with our Constitution, this bill simply invites the President to call to Congress's attention those spending items he recommends that we give additional thought to and to put a six-week hold on those funds while we do so. 

In fact, from 1801 until 1974, the President had the recognized authority to impound excess spending indefinitely - a legitimate executive function first asserted by President Thomas Jefferson.  The Budget Act of 1974 stripped the executive of this vital check on Congressional excess.  

Water for Our Future and Job Creation: Examining Regulatory and Bureaucratic Barriers to New Surface Storage Infrastructure

By admin on February 10, 2012

Opening Statement  at  the Water and Power Subcommittee Hearing:  

The subcommittee on Water and Power meets today to consider what steps need to be taken to remove government-imposed impediments to the construction of new dams and reservoirs.

 The need for action can be summarized quite succinctly: The Bureau of Reclamation has built over 600 dams and reservoirs in the last century, but two-thirds of them were built in the first 60 years of its existence - more than 50 years ago.  With one exception, Reclamation has not built any major dams or reservoirs in the last generation.

Budget and Accounting Transparency Act of 2011-HR 3581

By Tom McClintock on February 7, 2012

A family that excludes from its budget the mortgage payments it knows it must make is deluding itself and sabotaging its own finances.  That's precisely what the federal government is doing right now with respect to billions of dollars of liabilities because of its ill-fated sponsorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

This bill takes a small step toward restoring honest and accurate accounting to our government's finances by requiring that the enormous liabilities incurred by Fannie and Freddie be accounted for in the federal budget process using the same accounting standards for loans that we already impose on mortgage lenders.

HR 3582: Pro-Growth Budgeting Act

By Tom McClintock on February 2, 2012

The simple question now before us is whether it is better for Congress to have more information or less information when it is deliberating on matters that directly affect the economy of this nation.

The answer should be self-evident, but apparently, some members of this house prefer blissful ignorance than having to go to the fuss and bother of actually assessing the full ramifications of the policies they are enacting.  (That explains a lot about some of the decisions they've made in recent years).

The economy is a dynamic and fast-changing thing, responding rapidly to every tax and regulation imposed by government and every dollar that changes hands in markets.