June 2010 Archives


Sunday, July 4, 2010


 

 

9:00 AM
Lincoln Independence Day Parade
5th and F Street, Lincoln

Noon
Pollock Pines 4th of July Parade
Sly Park Road and Pony Express Trail, Pollock Pines

2:00 PM
Nevada City Parade 
Historic Downtown Nevada City

7:00 PM
Auburn Area, Lions Club 4th of July Parade
Lincoln Way and High Streets, Auburn
 

 

 
          Washington, DC – Representative Tom McClintock (R – Granite Bay) delivered the following opening remarks today at the Natural Resources Water and Power Subcommittee Hearing.  The hearing was held to discuss H.R. 4719 and H.R. 5487.  Included is a discussion of water in the Southwest border region of the United States and water research.
 
          Opening Statement by Water and Power Subcommittee Ranking Member Tom McClintock:
 
“Today we’re hearing two bills that both invite the question: what is Congress thinking?
 
“The first bill is HR 5487 that continues to throw millions of dollars – 90 millions of dollars, to be precise -- at 54 Water Resource Research Institutes that have been spending money since the Water Resources Research Act of 1984 was adopted.
 
“Before we throw more taxpayer money at them – bearing in mind that we don’t have that money to begin with – we have to borrow it – we wanted to take a look at what we’ve gotten. 
 
          “They’ve studied raising water rates and arrived at the stunning and groundbreaking discovery that if the price goes up, people use less.  One conducted a blind “taste test” of water in the District of Columbia.  They discovered it tasted a lot like water.  In Kentucky, they used this money to study salamander reproductive potency.  Presumably they discovered that salamanders, left to their own devices, tend to make more salamanders.
 
“To those who may argue not all of that was federal money, I would remind them of McClintock’s Fifth Law of Political Physics, that all funds are fungible and all of these institutes were receiving this money.
 
          “If this isn’t enough to raise some eyebrows, I must move on to note that the bill moves these institutes farther from their purported mission: to produce more water resources – to what it euphemistically calls “non-structural” measures.  Translated from bureaucratese, that means the development of more wetlands – a previous generation called them swamps – and associated farmland retirement at a time when we need more food production not less. 
 
“Many of us on the minority side believe that this Congress has already done enough to make farmers an endangered species; I ask why we need to use federal dollars to hunt farmers to the brink of extinction.
 
“Next, I should note that this program requires matching state dollars.  Before we reauthorize it, I would like to find out why this requirement has not been enforced.  Available USGS information suggests that several of these institutes have failed to follow matching requirements, and have in effect, taken the money and run.
 
“Which all would suggest the need for more oversight and not less.  Under current law, the USGS is required to submit a program report to Congress over how this program has spent our money every three years.  The USGS has yet to submit that report.  And yet, it is proposed not only that we further fund it without knowing how this money has been spent – the bill also reduces oversight further by subjecting the spending to review only once every five years.  So instead of not getting a report every three years under this bill we won’t get a report every five years.
 
          “Moving along…
 
          “The other bill raises one question regarding water supplies along the Mexican border while ignoring a more important one.  I refer to HR 4719 that seeks to create a permanent governmental entity aimed at providing more funding and water to the border region, although $1.4 billion federal dollars have already been spent for this purpose from 2000 to 2008.  
 
“We will hear testimony later today which questions why this bill is not focused instead on protecting the infrastructure that currently provides water.   We will hear that the Rio Grande River has become “notorious for illegal crossings of persons and drugs” and of a recently thwarted plot by the Zeta Drug Cartel to blow up the Falcon Dam.  
 
“We have a picture of drug smugglers swimming across the Rio Grande that puts the issue in perspective.  The open nature of the border has serious consequences not only on our water supplies but this nation as a whole.   This Congress needs to step up and secure our borders to stop the violence and protect our infrastructure and I hope that the focus of this bill can be altered to perform the core purpose of this national government: to protect the integrity of its own borders.

HR 5297 (TARP III)

House Chamber, Washington, D.C.  M. Speaker:

 The proponents tell us that this bill will increase lending to small businesses.  To do so they are creating a $30 billion slush fund to make loans to smaller banks, therefore encouraging smaller banks to make loans to small businesses.  Or so they say.

 It is a splendid example of what I like to call McClintock’s Second Law of Political Physics: the more we invest in our mistakes, the less willing we are to correct them.

 It’s apparently escaped the proponents’ attention that we are already doing precisely what the proposed new small business lending fund would do through the TARP’s existing Capital Purchase Program. 

That’s the conclusion of the Special Inspector General of TARP, Neil Barofsky. He wrote to the Financial Services Committee on May 17th and said: “in terms of its basic design, its participants, its application process, and perhaps, its funding source from an oversight perspective, the (Small Business Lending Fund) would essentially be an extension of TARP’s (Capital Purchase Program).”

 So if this scheme actually worked, we wouldn’t need this bill – banks would already be lending like crazy.  The problem is, it doesn’t work.  But some members can’t bear to face the American people and admit that they’ve squandered billions of dollars of working families’ hard-earned money.  So instead they bring us more of the same.

 This places an additional $30 billion of taxpayer money at risk.  We’re told, don’t worry, we’ll get the money back.

 When have we heard this song before?  Oh yes, when they bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  According to the Congressional Budget Office, taxpayers have now lost $145 billion heading to $400 billion.

 What’s likely to happen to the $30 billion put at risk in this bill?  Those banks with sound finances won’t touch this money – they don’t need it and they don’t need the federal entanglements that come with it. 

Only those banks with unsound finances will accept these funds, with little chance they will ever be repaid.  In fact, by removing the Special Inspector General from oversight of these funds, that risk is further aggravated.

 And just to be clear, there is no guarantee that a dime of this money will actually be lent to small businesses in the first place – in fact, ANY commercial or industrial loan will count towards the requirements of this bill.

 After a failed $700 billion TARP, $30 billion might not sound like much.  But let’s put it in perspective – the combined cleanup and economic costs of the Gulf Oil Spill are currently estimated around $17 billion.  So in terms of economic damage, this bill could actually cost more than cleaning up the entire mess in the Gulf.

 It’s true that small businesses are having great difficulty getting loans.  So are homebuyers.  Why is that?

 I suspect one of the principal reasons is that unprecedented public-sector borrowing has crowded out the capital pool that would otherwise have been available to make these private-sector loans.

Under this administration and this Congress, the government is running a 1 ½ TRILLION dollar annual deficit.  That’s roughly $20,000 for every family of four in America. 

Where does that money come from?  We borrow it.  From whom do we borrow it?  We borrow it from the same capital pool that would otherwise have been available to loan to small businesses and other employers seeking to add jobs, or loan to homebuyers seeking to re-enter the housing market, or to loan to consumers seeking to afford consumer purchases – and remember that two thirds of economic growth depends upon consumer spending. 

But that money now isn’t available to loan to employers and homebuyers and consumers to expand the economy – because government has borrowed it in order to expand government. 

That is the core of the problem.  I had offered an amendment to forbid the use of this TARP III money in the presence of a deficit – for a very simple reason.  If the government borrows that money to loan to one small business, that same money won’t be there to loan to another one. 

Government cannot inject a single dollar into the economy that it has not first taken out of the very same economy.

But of course, this amendment was forbidden under the rule we are now considering.

Therefore, I oppose the rule and I oppose the underlying bill.

 

 
 

 

HR 5297 (Tarp III)

House Floor, June 15, 2010.  Full Text.

The Family Budget

House Chamber, Washington, D.C.  M. Speaker:

Suppose your family is deeply in debt, bills are piling up, your credit cards are eating you alive.  Finally, you seek the help of a financial counselor.

 What’s the first thing that counselor is going to say?  He’s going to say, “the very first thing we’ve got to do is sit down and sketch out a family budget.”

 We all know that. 

 It’s hard work.  It’s painful.  But it’s absolutely necessary if you’re going to get control of your finances.

 Our national debt is fast approaching the size of our entire economy.   

 Yet, while this House has all the time in the world to consider the most trivial matters, it can’t spare the time to develop a national budget at the very moment in the life of our nation when we need it the most -- before we bury our children in debt.

 Churchill once spoke of a locust generation.  I wonder if that’s what we’ve become?
 

Constituent Survey

Thumbnail image for SURVEY RESULTS_r1_c1.JPG

Tele-townhall banner 

Pledge to America 

Search

Connect with Tom

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • News Feed

Upcoming Events

Satellite Office Hours
 
Office staff members are available to assist constituents with problems or concerns at satellite office locations held throughout the district.  Anyone wishing to discuss an issue of federal concern is invited to attend one of these satellite office sessions and speak with a member of staff.  For more information, or to reach staff anytime, please call the district office at 916-786-5560.
 
May Satellite Office Hours:

El Dorado County

South Lake Tahoe (Weather Permitting)
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
12:00 noon to 2:00 pm
(Contact District Office at 916-786-5560 to confirm location)
 
El Dorado Hills
Thursday, May 3, 2012
9:00 am to 11:00 am
California Welcome Center
2085 Vine Street, Suite 105
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
 
Placerville
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
10:00 am to 12:00 noon
El Dorado County Government Center, 330 Fair Lane,
Placerville, CA 95667
 
Nevada County

Nevada City
Monday, May 14, 2012
9:00 am to 12:00 noon
Eric W. Rood Administrative Center, County Executive Office (2nd Floor), 950 Maidu Ave.

Nevada City, CA 95959
Grass Valley
Monday, May 21, 2012
9:00 am to 12:00 noon
City Hall, Mayor's Conference Room, 125 East Main St.
Grass Valley, CA 95945
 
Truckee
Thursday, May 31, 2012
10:00 am to 12:00 noon
Truckee Town Hall (Second Floor Conference Room)
10183 Truckee Airport Road
Truckee, CA 96161
 
Placer County

Tahoe City (Weather Permitting)
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
9:00 am to 11:00 am
Tahoe City Community Center
380 North Lake Blvd.
Tahoe City, CA 96145

Auburn
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
10:00 am to 12:00 noon
Placer County Government Center, CEO 3 Meeting Room
175 Fulweiler Avenue
Auburn, CA 95603

Lincoln
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
3:00 pm to 5:00 pm
Lincoln City Hall, 600 6th Street
Lincoln, CA 95648

Rocklin
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
3:00 pm to 5:00 pm
City Hall Conference Room
3980 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA 95677