Tom McClintock

H.R. 807 (Full Faith and Credit Act) Approved by House

2013-05-09T21:49:25Z

Legislation authored by Congressman McClintock, H.R. 807 (the Full Faith and Credit Act), was approved by the House of Representatives on May 9, 2013 by a vote of 221 to 207.

Congressman McClintock's prepared remarks from the House floor debate:

Madame Speaker:

I had hoped that amidst all the controversies gripping Congress, certainly we should at least be able to agree that the full faith and credit of the United States should not hang in the balance every time there’s a fiscal debate in Washington.

And I want to thank Chairman Camp and the Ways and Means Committee for revisions that make this solution much simpler and more practical than the original draft.

Madame Speaker, this bill simply guarantees the sovereign debt of the United States Government will be paid in full and on time, under any circumstances -- even total political gridlock -- and it allows the Treasury Secretary to exceed the debt limit if necessary in order to do so.

Most states have had similar provisions to guarantee their debt in their laws or constitutions for generations. Last year, in testimony to the Senate, Ben Bernanke praised these state provisions for maintaining confidence in their bonds. He told the House Budget Committee that a similar measure at the federal level would help to protect against a default, which he called a very high priority.

And yet, this President and his followers, who have taken our nation on the biggest borrowing binge in its history -- who have run up more debt than almost all of his predecessors PUT TOGETHER -- oppose this common-sense measure to strengthen the credit upon which that debt depends. This bill tells credit markets that even in the event of an impasse on the debt limit, their loans to this government are ABSOLUTELY SAFE.

The Democrats raise three arguments.

First, they say that guaranteeing the nation’s sovereign debt is an excuse for not paying our other bills.

What utter nonsense!

I challenge them to name one member of Congress who has ever suggested that this measure is an acceptable substitute for NOT paying our other bills.

Do they actually suggest that all these other states -- that have guaranteed their sovereign debts for generations -- have ever used these guarantees as an excuse not to pay their other bills?

On the contrary, by providing clear and unambiguous mandates to protect their credit first, they actually support and maintain their ability to pay for all of their other obligations.

The second argument is that this bill would pay Chinese creditors before our troops.

I would remind them that more than half our debt is held by Americans, often in American pension funds. This actually protects Americans far more than the Chinese.

But whether our loans come from China or Timbuktu – from Grandma’s Pension Fund or Johnny’s Savings Bond – without the nation’s credit we cannot pay our troops or any of our other obligations.

We are borrowing a quarter of every dollar we spend and under this administration we have amassed a debt larger than the nation’s entire economy. Our nation’s credit now carries a greater strain and burden than ever before.

This measure strengthens our credit by guaranteeing that our sovereign debt will be paid in full and on time.

Perhaps the most bizarre argument is that by guaranteeing the nation’s credit we actually undermine it and risk another downgrade in our credit rating. After all, they say, a downgrade followed the last debt debate we had in Congress.

Here are the facts: Standard and Poors officials had warned for months that Congress had to reduce the projected 10-year deficit by $4 trillion to maintain a triple-A rating. Because of Democratic intransigence, this Congress could only reduce it by $1.2 trillion. And we lost the rating.

But the opponents are correct that several officials also expressed a concern that the impasse could have caused a default in the nation’s sovereign debt.

That is precisely what this measure would protect us from in the future!

No one advocates that the government delay paying ANY of our bills – and this legislation does no such thing. Indeed, this legislation protects our ability to pay all of our other bills – because paying those bills depends on maintaining the nation’s credit.

Given the precarious state of our nation’s finances, principled disputes over HOW the debt limit is addressed are going to happen from time to time. Just a few years ago, then-Senator Barack Obama vigorously opposed an increase in the debt limit sought by the Bush administration.

When these controversies erupt – as they inevitably do in a free society -- it is imperative that credit markets are supremely confident that their loans to the United States are secure.

That’s what this bill does. That’s all it does.

###

Statement in Response to Presidential Veto Threat of H.R. 807 (Full Faith and Credit Act)

2013-05-08T17:54:10Z

Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA) today issued the following statement in response to the President's threat to veto H.R. 807, the Full Faith and Credit Act. Congressman McClintock's legislation, H.R. 807, is scheduled to be voted on by the House of Representatives on Thursday, May 9, 2013.

Statement by Congressman Tom McClintock:

“Yesterday, the President vowed to veto the Full Faith and Credit Act, charging that it “would result in the Congress refusing to pay obligations it has already agreed to.”

“I challenge the President to name one member of Congress who has suggested that this bill is an acceptable substitute for not paying our other bills. The President’s reliance on this falsehood is a measure of the bankruptcy of his argument.

“Delaying payments on our other obligations would do enormous damage – but one thing could do even more damage -- and that is the threat of defaulting on our sovereign debt.

“H.R. 807 takes that threat off the table and assures credit markets that their investments in the United States are absolutely guaranteed no matter what political storms are raging in Washington.

“One would think that a President who has run up more debt than almost all of his predecessors combined would understand the importance of guaranteeing the credit that supports that debt.”

###

H.R. 934 Merced Wild and Scenic River Boundary Adjustment Legislation

2013-04-24T18:30:37Z

HR 934 was voted on, and approved, by the House Natural Resources Committee on April 24, 2013. Congressman McClintock delivered the following opening statment at the hearing:

HR 934

Markup Statement

April 24, 2013

Mr. Chairman:

HR 934 simply conforms the Merced River’s Wild and Scenic River boundary with the pre-existing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hydroelectric boundary for Lake McClure – which should have been done when the original designation was made.

The boundary change would enable the district to study the possibility of increasing the New Exchequer Dam’s spillway by ten feet, making it possible to temporarily store about 70,000 acre feet of additional water – enough to support 800 agricultural jobs or meet the needs of 70,000 households, AND to generate enough electricity for 1,700 homes.

The small portion of the Merced River affected by this project – about 1,800 feet – that’s 1,800 feet out of 122 miles of designated river – already floods during high run-offs; the spillway adjustment would simply prolong the inundation by between two and eight weeks in very wet years.

If the dam is modified, it will still have to undergo extensive environmental and engineering review and meet all environmental laws – but there is no point to incurring these costs if the current boundary would prevent it from proceeding. Hence, this bill, which passed the House in the 112th Congress but was not taken up by the Senate.

Opponents raise a number of points. The overriding issue, they say, is that this would be the first time a Wild and Scenic River boundary has ever been adjusted.

They have taken the absolutist position that never, ever, ever should a single inch of Wild and Scenic designation be given back. I think that if Congress knew that such boundaries could never be adjusted, even to correct mistakes -- or respond to changing conditions -- or to meet critical public needs -- there would be a lot fewer Wild and Scenic River designations.

The second objection is that the project would inundate an additional 1,800 feet of river and threaten endangered species like the Limestone Salamander.

But as I pointed out, this section already floods during heavy run-offs. More to the point, all state and federal environmental laws would still be in full force – including NEPA, CEQA, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act – and these issues would have to be addressed in that process.

The third objection is that increasing the spillway presents engineering issues. Once again, all of this would be addressed during the engineering process.

California has not built a major new water storage project since 1979, when the state’s population was just two thirds of what it is today. As water and electricity supplies become tighter and more expensive and as unemployment continues to stalk our communities, the necessity of this project should become increasingly clear and compelling – even to the most hard-hearted environmentalists.

This bill simply does what should have been done when the designation was made in 1992: conform the Wild and Scenic River boundary to the pre-existing FERC boundary. That’s all this bill does. And by adjusting the boundary, it begins a study that could lead to an increased supply of clean electricity and water, additional groundwater recharge, additional jobs and all the spin-off benefits at no cost to taxpayers – for communities that are now being crushed by some of the highest unemployment rates, highest electricity prices, and most preventable water shortages in the country.

# # #

Protecting the Public's Right to Enjoy Yosemite Sacramento Bee Editorial Response

2013-04-16T00:55:46Z

The Bee’s Sunday editorial (4/14/2013) once again misstates my position on several issues, this time pertaining to Yosemite Valley.

The Bee reports that I oppose legislation to purchase an additional 1,600 acres of land adjacent to park boundaries. In fact, the Bee was clearly informed I have not taken a position on that bill and will not do so until I can see the property and understand its role in the Park’s mission and operations.

The Bee attacks my concerns over a bill that would relocate Yosemite Park visitor services from the park to an 18-acre facility some 30 miles outside the park in Mariposa. Although that may be popular in Mariposa, it is strongly opposed by many officials and residents of surrounding gateway communities that are just as dependant on Yosemite tourism as Mariposa and would be severely disadvantaged as a result. The Natural Resources Committee has made it clear that no legislation will proceed without the agreement of all gateway communities, and I am working with those communities on a compromise that is fair to all.

What would truly devastate the economy of the region is the National Park Service plan to remove many tourist amenities from the park, including bicycle and raft rentals, snack facilities, horse stables, swimming pools, the art center, the ice-skating rink at Curry Village, and the historic Sugar-Pine Bridge. Yet the Bee attacks my opposition to this plan in the most strident terms.

Indeed, the Bee quoted my statement, “Yosemite belongs to the American people, and the Park Service’s job is to welcome them and accommodate them when they visit their park – not restrict and harass them,” and then equated it to “making Yosemite employees sound like Gestapo agents.” This should give every reader a clear insight into the extremism, hyperbole and unreality that dominates the views of this newspaper’s editorial board.

Finally, the editorial charges, “We attempted to talk to McClintock – to ask him why he opposes the Mariposa visitors center and the park expansion … He rebuffed our requests.” In fact, our office responded to every written request from Stuart Leavenworth, Editorial Page Editor, providing him with links to answer every issue he raised, and asked him if he had any more questions after reading the material, which he did not.

I hope Mr. Leavenworth will forgive me for not speaking with him and several of his more partisan colleagues at the Bee directly, but I hope they can understand that their objectivity, balance and accuracy are open to some doubt.

Tom McClintock, 4th Congressional District

Merced River Draft Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement - Comments by Congressman McClintock

2013-04-12T19:55:43Z

Congressman Tom McClintock today submitted the attached letter commenting on the Merced River Draft Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.

April 12, 2013

Don Neubacher, Superintendent
Attn: Merced River Plan
P.O. Box 577
Yosemite, CA 95389

Dear Mr. Neubacher:

I am writing to provide comments on the National Park Service’s (NPS) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Merced River Comprehensive Management Plan. Yosemite National Park is a national treasure that must be available for the American public to access and enjoy in the same manner that Americans have for decades. The 1864 Act authorizing the original Yosemite land grant to the State of California stated that the “premises shall be held for public use, resort, and recreation” and “shall be inalienable for all time.” The draft plan in question directly contravenes the authorization, and I am firmly against NPS taking any action that would limit public access and enjoyment of Yosemite.

Congress enacted the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to protect free-flowing rivers from dams and other development. Congress did not intend for NPS to use the Act to justify limiting visitation, closing facilities and eliminating or curtailing historic uses that pre-date passage of the Act and the Merced River designation under the Act. In designating the Merced River, Congress understood that Yosemite National Park had a multitude of existing facilities that served River users, that Yosemite was widely visited and that the Merced River was extensively used for recreational pursuits by Park visitors. See S. Rep. No. 96, 100th Cong, 1st Sess. 1987 (the river is an “outstanding and heavily used recreation resource in the areas of easy accessibility”).

The Merced River’s designation was based upon the River’s value as a popular recreation resource in a highly-visited National Park that was supported by the extensive facilities that existed at the time of the River’s designation. Congress could not have intended for NPS to limit visitation or do away with the existing facilities and the recreational activities that support the values that caused the Merced River to be designated in the first place. Congress also did not intend its designation to drive planning of the larger Park and force the closure of facilities that pre-date the Act, enhance visitor experiences, and are located outside of the Merced River.

It is equally troubling that NPS is proposing to close a number of facilities within Yosemite Village and reduce recreational activities in the Yosemite Valley. NPS claims that camping will be increased to 640 campsites but that figure is still less than the 830 campsites that existed before the 1997 flood. NPS is also proposing to close the Curry Village ice skating rink, bike rental facilities, snack stands, swimming pools, tennis courts, retail stores and horse stables and stock use. These facilities are not located in the Merced River, do not impede its flow, and many existed and historically served Yosemite visitors for decades prior to Congress passing the Act.

It defies logic that NPS is proposing to close these facilities not because they degrade the Merced River, but instead because in NPS’s eyes, these longstanding facilities do not benefit the River. What about the benefits that the American public will lose under NPS’s proposal? NPS is also proposing to eliminate commercial rafting on the River. Like the existing facilities, commercial rafting is a service that was offered before the Merced River’s designation under the Act.

I am also concerned about the proposed destruction of the Sugar Pine Bridge. This historic stone bridge was built in 1928 (40 years before enactment of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act) and was entered into the National Register of Historic Places in 1977. The National Historic Preservation Act directs federal agencies to preserve the historic properties under their control and the legislation designating the Merced River as Wild and Scenic does not require the bridge’s destruction. I do not believe that the Park Service may simply ignore its responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act to protect the Sugar Pine Bridge and find no justification for robbing Yosemite of this iconic landmark.

Finally, I am aware that NPS has received a number of requests for an extension of the public comment period on the Merced River plan. This is entirely understandable given that the plan and its exhibits are over 4,000 pages long, and that the comment period overlaps with the comment periods of two other major Yosemite Park plans. To ensure that the public has an adequate opportunity to provide its input, I concur that an extension is necessary, and therefore have requested that NPS extend its public comment period on the Merced River Plan by 90 days to ensure full public opportunity to comment on this important issue.

I submit these comments greatly troubled by the adverse and lasting effects this would have on Yosemite and the many visitors who enjoy the park.

Sincerely,

Tom McClintock

Click for PDF copy

Protecting America's Full Faith and Credit

2013-04-10T19:48:56Z

House Ways and Means Committee
April 10, 2013

Remarks by Congressman Tom McClintock

HR 807

Mr. Chairman:

Most people would agree that the “full faith and credit” of the United States should not hang in the balance every time there’s a fiscal debate in Washington. Even with record deficits, our revenues are roughly ten times greater than our public debt service, so there is no excuse for a debt default.

HR 807 will strengthen and protect our nation’s credit by assuring that debt service has first call on incoming revenues.

This is not a radical suggestion. The Government Accountability Office has consistently held that the Treasury Secretary already has “the authority to choose the order in which to pay obligations of the United States” to protect the nation’s credit. Indeed, such authority is inherent in the 1789 act that established the Treasury Department and entrusted it with the “management of the revenue” and the “support of public credit.” This measure simply restates that authority and requires the Treasury Secretary to use it to protect the nation’s credit.

Most states have similar laws to assure debt service is paid first. Last year in testimony to the Senate, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke praised these state provisions for maintaining confidence in state and municipal markets and he told the House Budget Committee that a similar measure at the federal level would help to protect against a default.

Is this a tacit suggestion that we shouldn’t meet our other obligations? Does anyone suggest that all the states that have had similar provisions in their Constitutions and statutes for hundreds of years have ever used them as an excuse not to pay their other bills? Of course not.

On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, these provisions to protect their credit first actually supports and maintains their ability to pay all their other obligations in the event of a deficit. Think about it this way: when you’re depending on your credit cards to pay your bills, you had better make sure to make the minimum credit card payment first.

Some say we should include other top priorities like Social Security or payments to our troops. The problem is, once we start down that road, we run out of money before we run out of worthy programs and Congress should not try to micro-manage this process.

More importantly, the fact is that the public credit supports Social Security AND payments to troops AND all those other obligations and this legislation ought to be focused on this central and fundamental imperative: to protect the public credit. Beyond that, we should leave it to the Treasury Secretary to set priorities according to the demands of the times.

Opponents have said that this would put repaying China ahead of paying Grandma’s Social Security. But more than half of the debt held by the public is held by Americans (including Grandma’s pension fund). China holds just eleven percent. Thus, this bill overwhelmingly protects American debt holders, and assures that American pension funds won’t be undermined in the event of a temporary fiscal stalemate in Washington.

This is not an endorsement of a prolonged impasse over the debt limit or funding bills. Postponing the prompt payment of all of the government’s bills would be unprecedented and dangerous. Although existing revenues could support critical government responsibilities for a while, distress to other federal employees and contractors would be severe, would rapidly compound, and would eventually threaten core governmental functions. The only worse fiscal outcome would be to fail to honor the nation’s debt obligations, and that’s what this bill would prevent.

We should remember that if the Full Faith and Credit of the United States is ever compromised, all programs are jeopardized. We must recognize that today our country is divided over fiscal policy and that protracted disputes in Congress are likely to continue for some time. Financial markets ought to be confident that their Treasury bonds are safe regardless of what political storms are raging in Washington.

This measure does so.

# # #

Congressman McClintock introduced H.R. 807 on February 25, 2013 in the 113th Congress. He discussed the legislation, and delivered these remarks, at an April 10th hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee held to examine debt limit issues.

Statement in Response to the Release by the Interior Department of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Calling for Removal of the Klamath Dams

2013-04-04T23:57:19Z

April 4, 2013

Statement by Congressman Tom McClintock in response to the release by the Interior Department of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) calling for removal of the Klamath Dams:

“The announcement today recommending removal of the four Klamath Dams is yet another chapter in an ongoing ludicrous effort to destroy four perfectly good hydroelectric dams that are capable of producing 155 megawatts of the cleanest and cheapest electricity on the planet – enough for 155,000 homes.

“Serious questions have been raised in regards to the policies and practices of scientific integrity implemented by Interior in reaching this conclusion.

“Fortunately, congressional approval is necessary to move forward with dam removal. The full House voted in 2011 against proceeding with the Klamath dam removal. That precedent speaks volumes on the chances of dam removal legislation passing in the House."

###

McClintock and Costa Introduce Merced Wild and Scenic River Boundary Adjustment Legislation

2013-03-04T17:00:39Z

McClintock and Costa Introduce Merced Wild and Scenic River Boundary Adjustment Legislation

          Washington, D.C. Congressman Tom McClintock, who represents Mariposa County, and Congressman Jim Costa, who represents Merced County, introduced a bill today that would allow Merced Irrigation District to apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to raise the spillway at Lake McClure. The legislation adjusts the Merced Wild and Scenic River boundary to match the FERC project boundary for the New Exchequer Dam.

          Merced Irrigation District is proposing to raise the spillway by 10 feet, which would allow for the storage of up to 70,000 additional acre-feet of water in a wet year. The District is currently unable to apply to raise the spillway because it would cause temporary increases in the levels of approximately 1,800 feet of the Merced River where it joins Lake McClure. The Merced Wild and Scenic designation prohibits such increases in water levels.

          “At a time when California is suffering increasingly scarce water supplies and paying among the highest electricity prices in the nation, this legislation will allow for both increased water storage and additional hydropower generation,” remarked Congressman McClintock. “The benefits of a minor adjustment to the boundary rescue this desperately needed resource from truly outrageous bureaucratic red tape."

          “As we face a looming water crisis this year, it is more important than ever that we continue to explore long-term solutions that improve water reliability throughout the state,” said Costa. “Though there is no silver bullet to solve our water challenges, increasing storage at Lake McClure Reservoir would give us another tool to prepare for dry years. Boosting storage is taking out an insurance policy to protect jobs and keep our economy moving.”

          Lake McClure has the storage capacity of over a million acre feet of water, and the spillway raise could allow for the capture of up to an additional 70,000 acre feet of water in a wet year. This would increase carryover storage and increase average critical dry year water supply by 15,000 acre feet. It would also enhance groundwater storage, provide incidental flood control benefits and the additional water could generate up to 10,000 MW hours of hydropower per year, enough to serve 1,700 homes.

# # #

The bill is H.R. 934, introduced in the first session of the 113th Congress.