Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. This amendment applies the act that I was just reading to the Central Valley Project. I was specifically answering the gentlelady's question by quoting directly from the text of the act that this proposes.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Let me read directly from the act of July 2, 1956, governing all reclamation contracts, including those under this legislation: The Secretary of the Interior shall include in any long-term contracts--

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I compliment the gentlelady from California on stating the opposite of this bill with remarkable precision. It does not repeal 20 years of California water law; it restores it by restoring the allocation that was agreed to by a broad bipartisan coalition in the Bay-Delta Accord of 1994. In fact, at that time, the Democratic Interior Secretary, Bruce Babbitt, assured all parties that this agreement would be honored by the State and Federal governments. His promise was broken first by his own Department and most recently when a Federal court deemed the delta smelt to be more important than the livelihoods of thousands of Central Valley farmworkers. Hundreds of billions of gallons of water that these communities had already paid for and depended upon were simply expropriated and blissfully and cavalierly dumped into the Pacific Ocean, turning much of California's fertile Central Valley into a dust bowl. This bill redeems the promise made to the people of California and restores the allocations that were agreed to. We hear: Well, that was then and this is now, and the science has changed. What they are referring to is not science; it is ideology masquerading as science. In 2010, their claims were thrown out of the Federal court, which cited ideological zealots who had attempted to, in the words of the court, ``Mislead and to deceive the court into accepting what is not only not the best science, it's not science.'' The science is this: the Northwest Fisheries Science Center determined the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a principal factor in salmon migration. Ocean currents. The California Department of Water Resources determined that pumps which deliver water to the Central Valley had a negligible influence on salmon and delta smelt migration. The National Academy of Sciences reported that nonnative and invasive predators, like the striped bass, are a far more significant influence on salmon and delta smelt populations. So the second thing that this bill does is to replace the ideological zealotry that created this human disaster with practical and fact-based solutions to support native delta smelt and salmon populations. For example, as I said earlier, it's common to find striped bass in the delta gorged with salmon smolts and delta smelt. This bill allows open season on these destructive, invasive, and nonnative predators. Fish hatcheries produce millions of salmon smolts each year, and tens of thousands return as fully grown adults to spawn, but these fish are not allowed to be counted. This bill counts them, ensuring that hatcheries will produce thriving and bountiful populations of salmon and delta smelts and any other species considered endangered. The San Joaquin River Settlement Act envisions an absurdly impractical year-round cold war salmon fishery on the hot valley floor at an estimated cost of $2 million per individual fish. That act was adopted by the Democrats 2 years ago when they controlled this House. It is so expensive because it attempts to establish something that only existed sporadically in nature. Instead, this bill establishes a year- round warm water fishery that acts in concert with the habitat at a fraction of the cost. Third, the bill removes disincentives in current law that discourage farmers from purchasing surplus water in wet years to recharge groundwater banks. It removes prohibitive regulatory restrictions on water transfers between willing buyers and willing sellers, which once had efficiently distributed water throughout that system from areas of surplus to areas of shortage. It allows environmental flows to be recycled and used by human communities once those flows have achieved their environmental purposes. Fourth, it brings the full force of Federal law to invoke and protect State water rights and forbid their violation by any bureaucracy: local, State, or Federal. In fact, this provision specifically addressed concerns raised by the very same opponents to the original bill who feared that, because of the unique joint operating agreement between the State and Federal Governments, changes in Federal allocations could lead to raids on senior water rights holders by the State government. This provision fully addresses those concerns through the Federal Government's legitimate constitutional authority in the 14th Amendment to protect the property rights of its citizens against encroachment by any government bureaucracy. This is the preemption issue that the opponents are raising. They are some of the same opponents who attacked the original bill for not protecting those rights. This bill doesn't preempt those rights; it specifically invokes them and protects them. It brings to an end the predation on the working people of California. It places senior water rights holders in a safe and secure position, and treats our water as the precious resource it is.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the author of the legislation, Mr. Nunes of California.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. No. It has to be negotiated. In fact, just read the text. I think this will answer the question.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, in 2009 and again in 2010, hundreds of billions of gallons of contracted water were expropriated from California farms and instead dumped into the Pacific Ocean in the name of the delta smelt. This tragic policy fallowed hundreds of thousands of acres of some of the most fertile and productive farmland in America. It threw thousands of hardworking families into unemployment. It devastated communities throughout the region, and it created the spectacle of unemployed farm workers standing in food lines to receive carrots imported from China in a region that, just a short time before, had produced much of American-grown fruits and vegetables; and it contributed to rising grocery prices that families felt far beyond the congressionally created dust bowl of California's Central Valley. In the last Congress, the then-minority Republicans begged and pleaded for hearings to address this catastrophe. The majority turned a deaf ear. Last year, we returned as the new House majority to take testimony on what could be done to correct this disaster. The result of those hearings is the bill by Mr. Nunes that this rule brings to the floor. This bill restores the water allocations established under the historic Bay-Delta Accord in 1994. When that agreement, commanding broad bipartisan support, was signed, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt assured all parties: A deal is a deal. And if it turns out that there is a need for additional water, it will come at the expense of the Federal Government. The water diversions shattered that promise. This bill redeems it. The Federal Central Valley Project is part of a coordinated operating agreement with the State Water Project at California's request and consent. The two are inseparable. In order to protect the water rights of every Californian, this bill brings the full force of Federal law to protect those rights so that there is no ambiguity. This protection has earned this provision the support of the Northern California Water Association, representing the water districts that serve the farms and communities and families throughout the areas of origin in California. My opponents just said this preempts State water rights. It doesn't preempt State water rights. It specifically invokes and protects State water rights against infringement by any bureaucracy--local, State, or Federal--a legitimate constitutional function of the Federal Government established under the 14th Amendment and made essential by the terms of the State-approved joint operating agreement of these intertwined water systems. The bill also restores common sense and practicality to protections for endangered native species like salmon and the delta smelt. One of the greatest threats to these endangered native species is nonnative invasive predators like the striped bass. Indeed, it is common to find striped bass in the Sacramento Delta gorged with endangered salmon smolts and delta smelt. This bill allows open season on these predators, and it encourages the use of fish hatcheries to assure the perpetuation of thriving native populations of salmon and smelt. It replaces the cost-prohibitive provisions of the San Joaquin River Settlement Act, which contemplates spending an estimated $1 billion to achieve the stated goal of establishing a population of 500 salmon below the Friant Dam. That comes to $2 million per individual fish. This bill replaces the absurd mandate of a year-round cold water fishery on the hot valley floor with a warm water fishery that actually acts in concert with the habitat. It removes disincentives in current law that discourage groundwater banking in wet years. It allows for the recycling of environmental flows by communities once they've achieved their environmental purpose. Mr. Speaker, the movement for stronger environmental protections began over legitimate concerns to protect our vital natural resources; but like many movements, as it succeeded in its legitimate ends, it also attracted a self-interested constituency that has driven far past the borders of common sense and into the realms of political extremism and outright plunder. This bill replaces the cost-prohibitive and unachievable dictates that caused so much human suffering in California with workable, affordable, and realistic measures based on real science and not on what one Federal judge rightly called the ``ideological zealotry'' of rogue bureaucrats. This debate will determine if we are about to enter a new era when common sense can be restored to our public policy and when a sensible balance can be restored between environmental and human needs. I welcome that debate, and I ask for the adoption of the rule to bring it forth.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Mountain Quarries Railroad Bridge near Auburn, California. The bridge opened for business in 1912 as the longest concrete-arch bridge of its time. Its purpose was to deliver mine material across the American River Canyon to and from the mountain quarries outside of Auburn via a privately-built railroad. For three decades trains rolled over the bridge, allowing the development of the vast quartz deposits in the area and employing thousands over the years and providing untold wealth to the community. After the train tracks were removed for scrap metal to aid in the production of World War II materiel, the bridge continued to serve as a public crossing connecting El Dorado and Placer counties. The soundness of the bridge's design and construction allowed it to withstand multiple floods in the canyon that brought down no less than four other bridges along the American River. The Mountain Quarries Bridge was even pressed into service to replace the Highway 49 Bridge, which was destroyed when Hell Hole Dam broke in 1964, until a replacement bridge could be built. But the Mountain Quarries Bridge has done more than serve the simple commercial purpose of transport across the river. Since 1955, the bridge has been a defining stretch in countless endurance rides and foot races. In the famed Western States Endurance Run, Mountain Quarries Bridge serves as the final landmark of the course and the transition out of the California wilderness into Auburn and the finish line. For the many adventurers, riders and runners who have used the bridge on hikes and races over the years, it serves as a monument to the trials endured in their journeys and the satisfaction and joy of their accomplishments. Standing a few miles from the confluence of the North and Middle Forks, the Mountain Quarries Railroad Bridge is a testament to bygone times when the beneficial use of our public resources was both frequent and celebrated. Having served the many commercial and recreational purposes of the area for a century, the Mountain Quarries Railroad Bridge is a fine model for the responsible utilization of the public lands for the public's use. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise today and join the communities of El Dorado and Placer counties as they celebrate this auspicious occasion.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, this bill presents us with a very simple question: Is it just conceivably possible that the Congress has, from time to time, passed a spending bill or two that ought to have had greater scrutiny? Now, the answer to that question may elude certain Members of this House, but I can assure them it is self-evident to everybody else. A country whose finances are as far out of control as ours suffers from not too many checks and balances on spending but from too few. Now the opponents discuss this bill as if it were some new and radical idea. The fact is many States operate with a genuine line-item veto and have for generations. For those States, it's been a vital 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' attention those spending items that he recommends that we give additional thought to and puts a 6-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. I'd prefer to see us restore that fiscal safeguard; or, better still, amend the Constitution to provide the President with an actual line-item veto. But let's at least set up a process so the President can warn us when he believes that we have appropriated more money than he needs to execute the laws that we have passed. This bill is, frankly, a mouse when we need a lion. The fact that it has produced shrieks of horror from some quarters of the House is an exact measure of the extent and nature of our problem.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, a family that excludes from its family budget the mortgage payments it knows it must make is deluding itself and it's sabotaging its finances. That's precisely what the Federal Government is doing right now with respect to billions of dollars of liabilities that arise from 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 exactly the same accounting standards for loans that we already insist upon with mortgage lenders. I wish this bill abolished Fannie and Freddie outright. I wish it restored the days when banks and borrowers who made bad decisions took responsibility for them and didn't demand that their neighbors pay for their mistakes. But can't we at least agree that the public has a right to expect that the cost of this folly is honestly accounted for in our Nation's budget?

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the Member for yielding. The simple question now before us is whether it's better for Congress to have more information or less information when it's deliberating on matters that directly affect the economy of our Nation. You'd think the answer would be self-evident, but apparently some Members of this House prefer blissful ignorance rather than going to all of the fuss and bother of actually assessing the full ramifications of the policies that they are enacting. That explains a lot about some of the decisions they've made around here 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. Yet the rules under which the Congressional Budget Office operates severely constrain its ability to take this obvious reality into account in the information that it provides us. This measure doesn't presume to tell the CBO how to do its job or what formula to use in its analysis. It doesn't even change the outmoded static modeling it uses to score the fiscal impact of measures coming before us. All that it says is: Give us the complete picture. If a proposal is going to affect the economy significantly, for good or ill, tell us, tell us what you think and show us why you think so. I think Patrick Henry summed up this bill perfectly when he said, ``For my part, no matter what anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.''

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced a bill to name the United States Post Office in Granite Bay, California, in honor of United States Marine Corps Private First Class Victor Dew. This young man was only 20 years old when he left his family and friends in late September of 2010 for Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Just 3 weeks later, on October 13, Private Dew was killed in action when his convoy was ambushed. Victor grew up dreaming of becoming a marine. He loved military history. He was fully aware of the mortal dangers he would face. Yet, when he was offered a posting to a ceremonial position stateside, he turned it down. He believed his duty and destiny was to keep the fight away from our shores, away from his family and his country, and so he chose combat even when he had been offered safe and honorable service at home. What did he sacrifice in order to give our country a little more security and to give another country a fleeting chance at redemption? He had everything in the world to live for. He was engaged to be married to a devoted young lady named Courtney Gold. Courtney said, ``We had life in the grasp of our hands, and we were ready to take on the world.'' They would have. She had already picked out her wedding dress. There is a picture of her wearing that dress. It's in Victor's casket. Victor was one of those sunny personalities who lifted the spirits of everyone around him. That's the recurring theme in all of the recollections of everyone who knew him. They'd be feeling down, and Victor would lift them up. I didn't know him, but I think I caught a glimpse of him in his little brother, Kyle. At the funeral reception last year, I found Kyle sitting at a table with his friends. When I went to offer my condolences, one of his friends said, ``You know, we came to cheer him up, and instead, he's been cheering us up.'' Victor lives on in the lives of those he touched, and he touched quite a few. He is remembered in his community as a faithful friend and as an inspiring teacher. Before he'd enlisted, he'd already become a popular martial arts instructor at a local dojo. Some of his students-- and some of them a lot older than he--came to his service that day. It has now been over a year since he returned to Granite Bay. In that year, he would have celebrated his 21st birthday. He would have returned safely home with his unit. He would have been married. And as Courtney said, he would have taken on the world. Instead, he rests in an honored grave. His family does what every Gold Star family does-- they cope with their grief with a mixture of fond memories and faith but, most of all, of pride for the life of their son. There are many graves in that cemetery that are etched with lifetimes much longer than the 20 years recorded on Victor's, but none of them comes close to his in this most important respect: what they did with those years. The most iconic work of art on the Titanic was a great carving that depicted Honor and Glory crowning Time. Victor Dew's time may have been short in this world, but he crowned that time with honor and glory that the rest of us can only marvel at. Every morning since he was 12 years old, Victor Dew awoke under a Marine Corps banner over his bed that was emblazoned with the words ``Semper Fidelis.'' In his life, we can see the full measure of those words. Every day in this majestic Capitol, we walk in the footsteps of the giants of our Nation's history. The oratory of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster still echoes through these Halls. At arm's reach of where I stand right now once spoke Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, Douglas MacArthur and Winston Churchill. Yet, in their long and illustrious lives, not one could claim to have sacrificed more for his country than these young men like Victor Dew. Lincoln was right that no meager words of ours can add or detract from their deeds. But Shakespeare was also right that their story should the good man teach his son. For that reason, I am proud to join a unanimous delegation from California in proposing that the post office in the town where Victor Dew lived and loved and returned as a fallen hero be named in his honor.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, long ago, Jefferson warned: ``The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.'' The exceptions to that rule have been few and far between recently; and they ought to be celebrated when they occur, as one did just this past week with the announcement that the supporters of the so-called Stop Online Privacy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act have indefinitely postponed their measures after an unprecedented protest across the Internet. SOPA and PIPA pose a crippling danger to the Internet because they use legitimate concern over copyright infringement as an excuse for government to intrude upon and regulate the very essence of the Internet--the unrestricted and absolutely free association that links site to site, providing infinite pathways for commerce, discourse, and learning. It is not the Internet, per se, that sets the stage for a quantum leap in human knowledge advancement but, rather, the free association that's at the core of the Internet; and this is precisely what SOPA and PIPA directly threaten. But as dangerous as this concept is to the Internet, it pales in comparison to the danger it poses to our fundamental freedoms as Americans. It is true that rogue Web sites operating from offshore havens are stealing intellectual property and then selling it. We already have very good laws against that, as evidenced by the arrest yesterday of Mr. Kim Schmitz and his associates in New Zealand who stand accused of operating one of the biggest of these rogue sites. Theft of intellectual property is fundamentally no different than the theft of any other kind of property. It should be taken no less seriously than the thefts perpetrated by the likes of Bernie Madoff or John Dillinger or Willie Sutton. It is no different, and it should be treated no differently. In every such case, it is the individual who commits the theft; and it is the individual who is culpable and the individual who is accountable to the law; and it's the individual who is also accorded the right of due process, including the presumption of innocence while he stands accused. That's what SOPA and PIPA destroy. Upon mere accusation, these measures would allow the government to shut down Web sites, ruin honest businesses, impound property, disrupt legitimate speech, and dragoon innocent third parties into enforcing laws that may or may not have been broken. When property is stolen, we hold accountable the individuals who knowingly commit the act and place the burden of proof on the accuser. The accuser must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the jury that the defendant stole property or that he received property that he knew was stolen. Yes, it is a ponderous system. Yes, it means you actually have to provide evidence. Yes, it means you have to convince a jury. Yes, it means that we can't catch and successfully prosecute every criminal. But the experience of mankind over centuries has proven that this is the best possible way to protect the innocent and protect our freedom while also punishing the guilty. In part, we punish the guilty to discourage others that we might not be able to punish. As the arrests yesterday in New Zealand prove, it works. Let Mr. Schmitz and his confederates be extradited, and let them have their day in court. Let evidence be presented. Let a jury be convinced of that evidence. And if convicted of one of the greatest thefts in human history, let us mete out the full measure of punishment provided by the law to stand as a fearsome example to others. This doesn't and won't stop all theft, and it isn't perfect. But to replace it with one where mere accusation can bring punishment or inflict ruinous costs upon innocent third parties would introduce a despotic and destructive concept that is antithetical to the ancient rights that our government was formed to protect. The developments of the last few weeks have saved the Internet and saved these fundamental principles, at least for now. But Jefferson was right that the natural order is for government to grow at the expense of liberty. That's why we have our Constitution. As to the protection of that Constitution, the Internet has now empowered its rightful owners--``we, the people''--to defend it more effectively than ever before, which leads me, Madam Speaker, to conclude that because of the events of the past week, we will see many more victories for freedom in the days and years to come.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, in all of this debate, I think that both parties have overlooked a critical problem. Both versions of this bill impose a permanent new tax on every mortgage backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. To pay for an additional 2 months of tax relief under the Senate version or 12 months under the House version, more than $3,000 in new taxes will be imposed on every $150,000 mortgage backed by Fannie or Freddie. A family taking out a $250,000 mortgage will pay $5,000 more in taxes directly and solely because of this bill hidden in their future mortgage payments. This is atrocious public policy. It shifts the burden for this bill to future home buyers, kicks the housing market when it's already down, makes it that much more expensive for home buyers to re-enter the market, and adds to the pressures that have chronically depressed everyone's home values. That's the reason that both the Senate and the House versions need to go back for major revision.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Boy Scout Troop 121 of Granite Bay, California, will conduct its 200th Eagle Scout Court of Honor and induct its 212th and 213th Eagle Scouts. During its 43 years of existence, Troop 121 has produced an entire generation of young men who have gone on to become upstanding family men, respected businessmen, and leaders of our community. And that's what I particularly want to salute today: the work of the Boy Scouts of America, as exemplified by Troop 121. The hiking and camping and outdoor activities might make Boy Scouting appealing and enjoyable, but what makes it admirable and elevated is not that it produces good campers, but that it produces good citizens. It inculcates timeless values and virtues that forge solid citizens who contribute far beyond their numbers to the strength and stability of our society. Troop 121 has done this for 43 years, and it is my pleasure and honor to commend them on their good work.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, one of the items of unfinished business remaining to this Congress is extending the payroll tax cut of last year that funds Social Security. It is an inframarginal tax cut, meaning that it doesn't change economic incentives and therefore it doesn't produce lasting economic growth. But it does provide great relief to working families, allowing them to keep more of their earnings at a time of declining incomes, shriveling assets, and rising prices, and it should be extended. But it must be extended responsibly to avoid doing further damage either to the economy or to the Social Security system that this tax supports. That means we have to make up the lost revenue. Now the Democrats have said, well, no problem, just tax the rich. In fact, they say that a lot. The problem is that the tax increases they propose are marginal tax increases, precisely the kind of tax increase that does enormous damage to the overall economy. Remember, more than half of net small business income would be subject to their tax increase--at precisely the moment when we're depending upon those small businesses to create two-thirds of the new jobs that our people desperately need. Now the measure passed out of the House this week also does far more harm than good. Unfortunately, the House added $167 billion to this year's already crushing deficit, mostly to pay for the payroll tax cut, purporting to repay 1 year's tax relief over the next 10 years. How does it do that? Well, in part, it tacks on additional fees to mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This shifts the burden to home buyers, who will end up paying far more in new taxes that are now hidden in their mortgage payments than they will ever get back from the tax cut. True, under the House version, the average family will save over $1,000 in payroll taxes, but if that family takes out a $150,000 mortgage backed by Fannie or Freddie, they'll end up paying an extra $3,000 as a result of this bill--$1,000 of tax cuts for $3,000 of extra mortgage payments. Put more bluntly, the House version kicks the housing market when it's already down, making it that much more expensive for home buyers to re-enter that market and adding to the pressures that have chronically depressed our home values. Worse, the House version would turn Fannie and Freddie into tax collectors for the general fund. If the House bill is enacted, we will have constructed a cash machine for government with an adjustable knob. And given the insatiable appetite of this government, the odds are far greater that that knob will be turned up and not down in coming years. Ironically, one of the reasons to continue the payroll tax cut is because of shrinking family assets--mainly the value of their homes. The House version adds to the downward pressure on their home values while telling them we're doing them a favor. Some favor. Fortunately, there is a way to extend the payroll tax cut, protect the Social Security system, and avoid doing further harm to the economy, and that's the measure offered by Mr. Landry of Louisiana, H.R. 3551. That bill was given short shrift in the House last week, and that's a shame. Mr. Landry's bill would give every American the choice to receive the year of tax relief in exchange for delaying their retirement by a month. According to the Social Security chief actuary, this would pay for itself. It would give every family in America the choice of deciding for itself whether the benefits of the tax cut are worth the cost of working a month longer. It would provide tax relief for those families that need it without doing harm to the Social Security system that the tax supports and without shifting the burden to pay for it to home buyers, as the House version does, or to job creators, as the Senate version would have done. It's not too late to fix this problem the right way. And I would strongly urge the House to take Mr. Landry's bill more seriously in the closing days of this session.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for generously yielding to me to offer a dissenting view of section 1021 of the underlying conference report. This is the section referenced by the gentleman from Florida that specifically affirms that the President has the authority to deny due process to any American the government charges with ``substantially supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban or any associated forces,'' whatever that means. Would ``substantial support'' of an ``associated force'' mean linking a Web site to a Web site that links to an al Qaeda site? We don't know. The question before us is: Do we really want to find out? We're told not to worry, the bill explicitly states that nothing in it shall alter existing law. But wait--there is no existing law that gives the President the power to ignore the Bill of Rights and detain Americans without due process. There is only an assertion by the last two Presidents that this power is inherent in an open-ended and ill- defined war on terrorism. But it is a power not granted by any act of Congress until now. What this bill says is, what Presidents have only asserted, Congress now affirms in statute. We're told this merely pushes the question to the Supreme Court to decide if indefinite detainment is compatible with any remaining vestige of our Bill of Rights. Well, that's a good point if the court were the sole guardian of the Constitution. But it is not. If it were, there would be no reason to require every Member of Congress to swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. We are also its guardians. And today we, who have sworn fealty to that Constitution, sit to consider a bill that affirms a power contained in no law and that has the full potential to crack the very foundation of American liberty.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, topping the list of unfinished business this year is the impending collision of two closely related crises: the expiration of the payroll tax and the acceleration of Social Security's bankruptcy. Last year, Congress voted for a payroll tax cut that averages roughly $1,000 for every working family in America. As warned, it failed to stimulate economic growth and it accelerated the collapse of the Social Security system; but, as promised, it threw every working family a vital lifeline in very tough economic times. We need to meet three conflicting objectives: We need to continue the payroll tax cut; we need to stimulate real economic growth; and we need to avoid doing further damage to the Social Security system. First, we need to understand that not all tax cuts stimulate lasting economic growth. Cutting marginal tax rates does so because it changes the incentives that individuals respond to; cutting inframarginal tax rates, such as the payroll tax, does not. But that payroll tax cut did make a huge difference in the ability of working families to make ends meet in a time of declining family incomes and steadily rising prices. To restore that payroll tax rate today, given the economic pressures on working families, is simply unthinkable. Yet at the same time, the payroll tax is what supports the Social Security system. Last year, that system entered a state of permanent deficit, and this condition will worsen until the Social Security system bankrupts in 2036. At that moment, every retiree will suffer a sudden and permanent drop in benefits of roughly 25 percent. Further reducing the revenues into that system will hasten this day of reckoning. Just as bad, in the intervening time the expanding Social Security deficit will heap growing burdens on the Nation's already staggering public debt. Now, some have proposed paying for the inframarginal payroll tax cut that doesn't help the economy with a marginal tax hike that actually harms the economy. Surely we can do better than that. Actually, Congressman Landry of Louisiana has done better, and I commend his proposal to the attention of the House. It avoids damaging the Social Security fund while at the same time offering families continued relief from crushing payroll taxes. His measure, H.R. 3551, the Social Security Preservation Through Individual Choice Enhancement (or SSPICE) Act, constitutes the most realistic and innovative approach to these twin and related crises that has yet been placed before Congress by linking the cost of Social Security to the benefits that it provides. H.R. 3551 would give every American the choice of paying a lower payroll tax each year in exchange for working a month longer. That's all it would take to pay for itself--a month's delay in retirement for a year's worth of tax relief. For the first time, individuals can make this choice to pay a lower payroll tax based on their own circumstances without further undermining the fiscal integrity of the Social Security system or the financial security of those relying on that system. For the first time, costs and benefits would be linked in a manner that all consumers can understand and judge for themselves based on their own circumstances. In a difficult year like this, I think most families would rather save the extra tax and work the extra month. In better times ahead, they may choose to pay the extra tax to maintain their retirement schedule. But it will be their choice based on their needs, their plans, and their best judgment, and not the government's. And by linking costs with benefits, it will protect the long-term actuarial soundness of the Social Security system, a fact that the Social Security system's chief actuary has confirmed. I'm excited to cosponsor Mr. Landry's bill and strongly and enthusiastically recommend it to the membership of the House and to the leadership. Mr. Landry has done an enormous service to every retiree who depends upon the Social Security system, as well as to every working family struggling in America, by preserving the fiscal integrity of the system while at the same time giving every American a choice that links the tax they pay to the benefits they receive. And it's an option they can exercise every year without fear that a future congressional act or failure to act might sock them with a tax increase they can't afford or hasten the collapse of a retirement system that many depend upon for their economic survival.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. In the Sierra foothills in northeastern California lies the little town of Colfax, a population of 1,800, with a median household income of about $35,000. Over the last several years, this little town has been utterly plundered by regulatory and litigatory excesses that have pushed this little town to the edge of bankruptcy and ravaged families already struggling to make ends meet. You see, Colfax operates a small wastewater treatment plant for its residents that discharges into the Smuthers Ravine. Because it does so, it operates within the provisions of the Clean Water Act, a measure adopted in 1972 and rooted in legitimate concerns to protect our vital water resources. The problem is that predatory environmental law firms have now discovered how to take unconscionable advantage of that law to reap windfall profits at the expense of working-class families like the townspeople of Colfax. In the case of Colfax, an environmental law firm demanded every document pertaining to the water treatment plant from the date of its inception. It then pored over those documents looking for any possible violations, including mere paperwork errors. By law, those documents include self-monitoring reports by the water agency itself, and any violation, no matter how minor, establishes a cause of action for which the law provides no affirmative defense, even if the violation is due to factors completely beyond the local community's control, including acts of God and acts by unrelated and uncontrollable third parties. Prove one such violation--and remember, the law allows for no affirmative defense--and you've just guaranteed the attorneys all of their fees, which in this case were billed at $550 per hour. As a result of this predatory activity, the town of Colfax is facing legal fees alone that exceed the town's entire annual budget. Families that are struggling to keep afloat just above the poverty level are fleeced by attorneys charging $550 an hour. But that's just part of the problem. The law requires constant upgrading of facilities to meet ever- changing state-of-the-art regulations that have nothing to do with health and safety and with absolutely no concern for the prohibitive costs involved. In fact, Colfax is now required to discharge water certifiably cleaner than the natural stream water into which it is discharged. In Colfax's case, this required a $15 million expenditure, divided among 800 working-class residents, who are now paying $2,500 per year just for their water connections. And once the town has met the standard, there's no guarantee that in 5 years it won't be told, Sorry, the rules have changed and you'll need to start over. Mr. Speaker, it's time to restore some form of rationality back to this law and to stop the plunder of small towns like Colfax. And Colfax isn't alone. Any community that operates a wastewater treatment plant is in the same jeopardy. No one disputes that we need to maintain and enforce sensible and cost-effective protections of our precious water resources; but legitimate environmental protections must no longer be used as an excuse for regulatory extremism and litigatory plundering of our local communities. Today, I'm introducing legislation to offer six reforms to protect other communities from going through the same nightmare as the people of Colfax: First, to limit private-party lawsuits to issues of significant noncompliance rather than harmless paperwork errors; Second, to shield local agencies from liability for acts that are beyond their control; Third, to give local agencies 60 days to cure a violation before legal action can be initiated; Fourth, to allow communities to amortize the cost of new facilities over a period of 15 years before new requirements can be heaped on them; Fifth, to require a cost-benefit analysis before new regulations can be imposed; Sixth, to limit attorney fees to the prevailing fees of the community. Like many movements, the impetus for stronger environmental protection of our air and water was firmly rooted in legitimate concerns to protect these vital resources; but like so many movements, as it succeeded in its legitimate ends, it also attracted a self- interested constituency that has driven far past the borders of common sense and into the realms of political extremism and outright plunder. I'm hopeful that we're now entering an era when common sense can be restored to environmental law in this session of the Congress.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider H.R. 822, a long overdue measure to ensure that States recognize the concealed weapons permits issued by other States. This very simple measure has unleashed a firestorm of protests from the political left. I noted one polemicist, who obviously has not read the Constitution, wax eloquently of the constitutional violation of States' rights enshrined in the 10th Amendment. What nonsense. Article IV of the Constitution could not possibly be more clear: ``Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.'' It is precisely this article that requires one State to recognize driver's licenses or birth certificates or arrest warrants issued by another State. Without it, we are not a Union but merely a loose confederation. Well, then we're told this is dangerous and risky to allow honest and law-abiding citizens to exercise their lawfully issued permits in other States. Upon what basis do they make this claim? Certainly not upon any empirical data. The impact of right-to-carry laws, that is, laws that require the issuance of a concealed weapon permit to any law-abiding citizen, has been studied extensively, and the vast preponderance find that crime rates have fallen in those States after they've adopted such laws. No credible study has ever found that the enactment of such laws has produced an increase in crimes or suicides or accidental deaths. Overall, States with right-to-carry laws have 22 percent lower violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates as compared to the rest of the country. Indeed, right-to-carry laws have been so successful that no State has ever rescinded one. So, if the left can't make a rational case on constitutional grounds or on empirical grounds, what is the problem? I suspect it comes down to what Ronald Reagan once called this irreconcilable conflict between those who believe in the sanctity of individual freedom and those who believe in the supremacy of the State. Years ago, I had the honor to work for the legendary chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, Ed Davis. During his 8\1/2\ years as chief of the LAPD, crime dropped in Los Angeles even while, during the same period across the rest of the Nation, it was ballooning by more than 50 percent. Chief Davis founded Neighborhood Watch. He was an ardent opponent of laws that restrict ownership of firearms by honest citizens. His successful philosophy was predicated on the principle that, as he put it: ``It's not the responsibility of the police department to enforce the law. That is the job of every citizen. The police department is there to help.'' As citizens, we're an integral part of the laws that we enact. That doesn't mean we act as vigilantes, but it does mean that each of us has an inalienable right to defend ourselves and our families from violent predators with whatever force is necessary. And if we see a child being molested or a woman being robbed or an old man being beaten, we have a moral responsibility to intervene to the extent that we can. A concealed weapon in the hands of honest and law-abiding citizens makes us all safer. Simply knowing that there are responsible citizens among us capable of responding with force is itself a powerful deterrent to crime. That's the well-documented experience of every State with a right-to-carry law. But a society in which honest and law- abiding citizens are disarmed by their government is a society in which the gunman is king. This is a truth that ought to be self-evident, but it is lost at the altar of the authoritarian left, which seems to concentrate all power in government at the expense of the people. Perhaps the best test of the self-evident nature of that truth is illustrated in a full-page newspaper ad I once saw that offered a cut-out sign, which in 150-point type said: ``There are no guns in this house.'' The caption under it asked, ``Would you post this sign in your front window?''

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the International Monetary Fund estimated that as of Halloween night, the debt of this Nation surpassed its entire economy for the first time since World War II. We all know that if you live beyond your means today you're going to have to live below your means tomorrow. That's the tomorrow that our generation has created for the children who were dressed up as princesses and cowboys when they came calling on Monday night. This is our generation's eternal shame. And it's something that our generation must act to set right. The House is expected soon to vote on a balanced budget amendment that's critical to stop this plunder of our children. There are a number of excellent proposals out there, and I'd have no trouble supporting any of them. I do rise, however, to express the hope that the final product of these deliberations proves worthy of the wisdom that guided the drafting of the Constitution. The beauty of the American Constitution is in its simplicity and its humility. The American Founders recognized Cicero's wisdom that the best laws are the simplest ones. And they realized that they couldn't possibly foresee the circumstances and conditions that might confront future generations, and therefore they resisted the temptation to micromanage every decision that might be made centuries in the future. Instead, they set forth general principles of governance and erected a structure in which human nature, itself, would provide guidance in future decisions to conform with these principles. In crafting a balanced budget amendment, we need to maintain these qualities. We shouldn't attempt to tell future generations specifically how they should manage their revenues and expenditures in times that we cannot comprehend. The experience of many States that operate under their own balanced budget amendments tells us that the more complicated and convoluted such strictures become, the more they are circumvented and manipulated. Many have quoted Jefferson's 1798 letter to John Taylor as support for a balanced budget amendment. Here is what he actually wrote: ``I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution. I mean an additional article: taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.'' What is a balanced budget? It's simply a budget that doesn't require us to borrow. So, as Jefferson did, why don't we just say so? Instead of trying to define fiscal years, outlays, expenditures, revenues, emergencies, triggers, sequestrations, and so on, I hope that we would consider 27 simple words: ``The United States Government may not increase its debt except for a specific purpose by law, adopted by three-fourths of the membership of both Houses of Congress.'' That's it. Such an amendment, taking effect 10 years from ratification, would give the government time to put its affairs in order and to thereafter naturally require future Congresses to maintain both a balanced budget as well as a prudent reserve to accommodate fluctuations of revenues and routine contingencies. It trusts that three-fourths of future Congresses will be able to recognize a genuine emergency when they see one and that one-fourth of Congress will be strong enough to resist borrowing for light or transient reasons. The experience of the States warns us that a two-thirds vote is insufficient to protect against profligacy. Some advocate going much further by establishing limitations on spending and taxation as well; but if borrowing is prohibited, there exists a natural limit to the ability and willingness of the people to tolerate taxation and therefore spending. The real danger is when runaway spending is accommodated and made possible by borrowing, which is simply a hidden future tax. The best and most effective way to invoke that natural limit is with a simple prohibition. At the end of the week, I will introduce this 27-word amendment and will ask my colleagues to consider it with the many others that are currently before the Congress. As I said, I like virtually all of them, as they all accomplish the purpose of restraining the reckless deficits that our generation has produced; but in drafting an amendment to guide not only this generation but all of those to follow, I would hope that we would do as the Constitutional Convention would have done had it had the benefit of Jefferson's wise counsel: to set down the general principle only and allow future generations, with their own insights into their own challenges, to put it to practical effect.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Richard Landis of Lake Wildwood, California. Mr. Landis grew up in Marysville and Yuba City. He and his wife, Beth, met while attending the University of La Verne. They have three grown children. Dick Landis began his long legacy of contributing to his community by serving our country as an aviator in the U.S. Army Air Corps. He had a distinguished military service record, having flown the P-38 and the P- 51 in two and a half combat tours in the European theater. After graduating from La Verne and leaving military service, Dick went on to have a very successful business career, eventually rising to be Chairman and CEO of the Del Monte Corporation, as well as serving on the boards of several other corporations. During his tenure in the private sector Dick was known for his active involvement in the communities in which his firms did business. He was named California Manufacturer of the Year in 1981 and given the Good Scout Award as well as the Silver Beaver Award in 1975 by the San Francisco Bay Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America, of which he was Executive Board Chairman. In the 1980s, Landis retired to Lake Wildwood. In Nevada County, Mr. Landis has been a very enthusiastic supporter, member of the Board and major donor to Music in the Mountains, Penn Valley Rotary becoming a Paul Harris Fellow many times over and having received Rotary Foundation's Major Donor Recognition, supporting and advising Nevada County Habitat for Humanity, along with several other non-profit organizations. He has authored two books on business and personal ethics, one of which is aimed at encouraging youth to be active members of their communities throughout their lifetimes. This weekend, the Rotary Club of Penn Valley, California will host a dinner in Dick's honor to thank him for his many years of support for his community and to raise funds to endow the Dick Landis Music in the Mountains Rotary Scholarship through the new Penn Valley Rotary Foundation. The group is right to honor Mr. Landis, and I am proud to rise today in recognition of his fine example of how a citizen can contribute to his community and country.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the government's continuing failure to address our Nation's gut-wrenching unemployment stems from a fundamental disagreement over how jobs are created in the first place. We're now in the third year of policies predicated on the assumption that government spending creates jobs. We've squandered 3 years and trillions of dollars of the Nation's wealth on such policies, and they have not worked because they cannot work. Government cannot inject a single dollar into the economy until it's first taken that same dollar out of the economy. True, we see the job that's saved or created when the government puts that dollar back into the economy. What we can't see as clearly is the jobs that are destroyed or prevented from forming because government has first taken that dollar out of the economy. We see those millions of lost jobs in a chronic unemployment rate and a stagnating economy. Government can transfer jobs from the productive sector to the government sector by taking money from one and giving it to the other. That's at the heart of the President's plan to spend billions of dollars to hire more teachers and firefighters and police officers. But these temporary government jobs come at a steep price. Every dollar spent sustaining one of these jobs is a dollar taken from the same capital pool that would otherwise have been available to productive businesses to invest in creating permanent jobs. Government can also transfer jobs from one business to another by taking capital from one and giving it to the other. That's how we got Solyndra. We put a half-billion dollars at risk to create 1,100 jobs. That's $450,000 per job. Now that half-billion dollars is gone and so are the jobs. And who pays for these losses? Other businesses and their employees, meaning fewer jobs created. What government can do very effectively is to create the conditions in which jobs either flourish and expand or wither and disappear. When we place additional taxes on productivity, jobs disappear. The President says he only wants to tax millionaires and billionaires, but the tax increases in his so-called jobs plan actually hammer more than 75 percent of net small business income, at a time when we're counting on those small businesses to produce two-thirds of the new jobs that our people desperately need. That is insane. When we place additional regulations on productivity, jobs disappear. That's what we're watching in real time--thousands of pages of new regulations from Obamacare, from Dodd-Frank, from the EPA stifling American job creation. It's no secret why business isn't expanding. Just ask a businessman. They're scared to death of the additional taxes and regulations they may be facing in the next few years, and they're pulling back to see what happens. Ask bankers why they're not lending; you'll hear the same answer. House Republicans have laid out a comprehensive plan to revive the economy through the same policies that worked under Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s, under John F. Kennedy in the early sixties, under Harry Truman in the mid-forties and under Warren Harding in the early twenties. For example, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that ObamaCare by itself will cost our economy a net loss of 800,000 jobs. A few weeks ago, the Natural Resources Committee received testimony that, just by getting government out of the way and opening up American energy resources to development, the economy could create 700,000 jobs and $660 billion of direct revenues to the national and State treasuries. So repeal ObamaCare and open up American energy resources; there's 1\1/2\ million jobs right there at no cost to taxpayers. Now, imagine doing that across all sectors of the economy. That's what Republicans are proposing to do. The fact that the President doesn't even recognize this as a jobs plan leaves me to conclude that he simply doesn't understand how jobs are created in the first place. When Ronald Reagan inherited an even worse economy from Jimmy Carter, he reduced the tax and regulatory burdens that were crushing the economy , just as Republicans proposed to do today. According to a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, if the economy today under Obama had tracked the same as it did under Reagan, 15.7 million more Americans would be working today and per capita income would be $4,000 higher than it is today, $16,000 higher for a family of four. Mr. Speaker, freedom works. It is time we put it back to work.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, 40 years from now, a beloved high school history teacher at Tahoe High School named Garrett Fant should be celebrating his retirement surrounded by generations of his students and his children and grandchildren. They would have all told affectionate stories about how Mr. Fant inspired them or helped them and wished him a happy and well-deserved retirement. Unfortunately, history has willed a different story. Army Specialist Garrett Fant instead returned to Lake Tahoe last week as a fallen hero at the age of 21. This young man sacrificed all those years, all those memories, all those pleasures--and all that life--in the service of his country. He loved the Army, and he had a plan for his life--he'd serve his country as a soldier for 20 years, and then he would come and serve his community as a high school history teacher. From everything I've learned about Garrett Fant, he would have made a great history teacher. His mother told a reporter, ``His thought was that high school was the last stop for kids, and he wanted to influence people.'' He'd have made a great family man. His older brother remembers looking up to Garrett as if Garrett were the older brother. Knowing full well the dangers that surrounded him in Afghanistan, his foremost attention went to reassuring his family that he was safe and secure. His mother said, ``He always tried to protect me from the dangers of being over there. He was just someone that, if you were his family or his friends--or his country--he gave you his all and loved you with everything.'' Above all, Garrett Fant wanted to be a soldier. His brother tried to get him to enlist with him in the Navy, but Garrett would have none of that. He was all Army and had known from the time he was a little boy that's what he most wanted to do. On Facebook, he listed his occupation as ``grunt,'' telling his friends, ``You can't spell Infantry without `Fant.' '' He was the top marksman in his class of 1,000. I wish I'd known him. I wish my grandchildren might one day have been his high school history students. Instead, Army Specialist Garrett Fant takes his place in history, among nine generations of American heroes who sacrificed all those precious years to protect those who couldn't protect themselves, to stand up to the bullies of the world, ``to proclaim liberty throughout all the land and unto all the inhabitants thereof.'' In his farewell address at West Point, General Douglas MacArthur turned his attention to fallen heroes like Army Specialist Garrett Fant, and with searing insight he observed, ``Their story is known to all of you. It is the story of the American man at arms. My estimate of him was formed on the battlefields many, many years ago and has never changed. I regarded him then as I regard him now, as one of the world's noblest figures; not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of the most stainless. ``His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me, or any other man.'' And MacArthur goes on to say, ``But when I think of his patience under adversity, of his courage under fire, and his modesty in victory, I am filled with an emotion of admiration I cannot put into words. ``He belongs to history as furnishing one of the greatest examples of successful patriotism. He belongs to posterity as the instructor of future generations in the principles of liberty and freedom.'' And so Garrett Fant became a teacher after all. As Shakespeare said, ``this story shall the good man teach his son.'' Succeeding generations of students at South Lake Tahoe High School and also at Valley Oak High School in American Canyon, which Garrett also attended, will know his story. Every Memorial Day in his hometown, his name will be read with a special pride that his friends and neighbors will share. Strangers will pass by his honored grave, adorned with flags and flowers, and they'll note the few years he had and the sacrifice he made and be humbled by it and perhaps inspired by it to become better citizens. No history teacher can do more than that. To his grieving family, on behalf of a grateful Nation, I can only say that you do not mourn alone. Your pride in Garrett is shared by your community, by your country, and by many, many history teachers who will tell his story to the latest American generation.