Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of Robert Biller of La Canada, California. Bob was a gifted educator and passionate advocate for the students of California, and it is with a grateful heart I remember him today. Bob received his bachelor's degree from University of California, Los Angeles in 1959 and spent the next several years serving his country as the administrator at the U.S. Naval Ordinance Test Station in China Lake, California. He would go on to earn his master's and doctorate degrees from University of Southern California in 1965 and 1969, respectively, winning recognition from his peers and the Henry Reining Jr. Dissertation Award for his dissertation in public administration. Bob began his professional career in academia teaching at the University of California, Berkeley, where he helped establish the Graduate School of Public Policy and its Experimental Program in Health and Medical Sciences. He returned to USC in 1976, serving as the Dean of Public Administration until 1982. During this time, Bob raised the standard of education for the public administration program and raised the school's first one million dollar endowment as well as serving in leadership roles with the Deans' Council and the Budget Advisory Committee. Bob spent the next twenty years serving in various roles at USC including Executive Vice Provost (1982-1988), Dean of Fine Arts (1987), Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid (1988-1989), Vice President for External Affairs (1988-1992), Vice President for Undergraduate Affairs (1992-1993), Interim Dean of the School of Policy, Planning and Development (1998-2000) and he continued to be actively involved in university life after his official retirement in 2001. Madam Speaker, it is without a doubt that through his commitment to education and service Bob Biller made USC a better place and its students better off. On behalf of the countless students whose lives he touched, it is my privilege to rise today in recognition of the many accomplishments and contributions of Robert Biller.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 528, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, throughout what was supposed to be a recovery summer, the President has repeated a familiar theme, that the Republicans ran us into a ditch and now they want the keys back. That's an important point. We need to understand exactly what it was that the Bush administration did to run us into a ditch. In fact, President Bush made two major policy blunders. The first was to preside over unprecedented regulatory intervention into the housing market that deliberately enticed people who couldn't afford homes to buy them anyway. At the same time, these policies deliberately encouraged lenders to make irresponsible loans by promising them that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would cover the risk. This created a massive artificial housing bubble that ultimately burst with catastrophic impact. But my question of President Obama is, if we know that this road leads to ruin, why does he continue down it at even higher speeds? Failing to learn from the damage that government intervention does by creating artificial bubbles in the economy, the President has repeated and amplified Mr. Bush's blunders not only in the housing market with mortgage subsidies and home purchase credits, but now also in other markets like automobiles and home improvements. Each time he has squandered billions of dollars merely to borrow from future demand, leaving behind economic craters each time these bubbles have burst. President Bush's second blunder was to increase Federal spending at an unsustainable rate, transferring economic decisions from the productive sector to the government sector and crowding out the capital market by excessive government borrowing. Now remember, the $168 billion stimulus bill was a Bush brainchild. That's when we all got those $600 checks. If massive deficits and record government spending create prosperity, well then the final Bush years should have produced a golden age for the American economy. Has the President reversed these irresponsible Bush-era policies? On the contrary. He has amplified and expanded them. In his first 19 months in office, this administration has run up more publicly held debt than all 8 years of Bush combined, with a promise that this would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Yet all this has accomplished is to crowd out trillions of dollars of capital that could otherwise have gone to employers to add jobs or to homebuyers seeking to re-enter the housing market or to consumers seeking to make consumer purchases. Thus, instead of the sharp V-shaped recovery that normally follows a recession, America is now entering its third year of economic distress. The reason these policies have not worked is because they cannot work. They didn't work under George W. Bush, and they have not worked when Barack Obama doubled down on them. The core of Obamanomics is the proposition that, if government can inject enough money into the economy, it can stimulate consumer spending and, therefore, demand for production. Unfortunately, government cannot inject a single dollar into the economy that it has not first taken out of the same economy. It's true, if the government takes a dollar from Peter and gives it to Paul, Paul will have an extra dollar to spend--but Peter now has one less dollar to spend in that very same economy. On paper, the economic effects of income transfers always net to zero. In practice, transfers net to much less than zero because they shift huge amounts of capital away from decisions that would have been made in the productive sector based on economic return towards decisions that are made in the government sector based on political return. We see very clearly the government jobs that are created when government puts that dollar back into the economy. What we don't see as clearly are the productive jobs that were prevented from forming as government first takes that dollar out of the economy. We see those lost jobs reflected in a chronically high unemployment rate and a stagnating economy. It's time that we stopped wrestling for the steering wheel and recognized bad public policy for what it is, whether the driver is a Republican or a Democrat. The problem is not the driver but the direction, and the direction hasn't changed. We all know the road to prosperity. We've taken it before. When we've reduced the burdens on productivity, the economy has blossomed. It worked when Ronald Reagan did it. It worked when John F. Kennedy and Harry Truman did it. And it will work again, but we will need leaders with a far better sense of direction than what we have today.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, this bill ignores a simple truth: Government cannot inject a single dollar into the economy that is not first taken out of the same economy. We see the jobs that are saved or created when the government puts the money back in. What we don't see directly are the jobs lost or prevented when the government first takes that money out of the economy. Those lost jobs are seen in chronic unemployment rates and a stagnant job market, despite unprecedented government spending. Nor is this necessary to save teaching jobs. A school board faced with the choice between a couple of good teachers and an overpaid bureaucrat is probably going to keep the teachers and fire the bureaucrat. But this bill says it doesn't have to make that choice. Indeed, this actually prohibits school boards from doing anything that would reduce their spending below last year's levels. Madam Speaker, it is time to invoke the first law of holes: When you are in one, stop digging.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, many people are asking why Congress is here today. I think the answer is pretty simple: We are not bankrupting the country fast enough, and so we need to come back and spend even more. In the merciful week that Congress was not in session, my constituents had one message: Stop the spending. Obviously, Congress isn't listening. Over the past 2 years, this administration and this Congress have increased spending by nearly 18 percent and run up more debt in 2 years than the irresponsible Bush administration did in all of its 8 years combined. Meanwhile, unemployment has increased from 7.6 percent to 9.5 percent. Yet, the problem, in the view of the House Democrats, is that we just aren't spending enough. So we gather here today to shovel another $26 billion at the problems. That comes to about $330 from an average family taken directly out of the Nation's struggling economy. Now, the gentleman from Oregon just told us, well, don't worry, it is paid for. Well, how is that? $10 billion from increasing taxes on businesses with foreign subsidiaries. But remember this: Businesses don't pay business taxes. Business taxes can only be paid in one of three ways: By us as consumers through higher prices; by us as employees through lower wages; and, by us as investors through lower earnings, mainly on our 401(k)s. Another $12 billion comes from cuts in food stamps starting in 2014, but we are going to use the savings starting now. I tried that one out on my wife the other day. ``Honey, sure we can afford that new jet ski this year. I am planning to cut our grocery budget by $10,000 in 2014.'' I am sad to report, she didn't buy it. We are told this is part of the plan to save or create jobs. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is not saving jobs. It is destroying jobs. Government cannot inject a single dollar into the economy that it hasn't first taken out of that very same economy. We see the jobs saved or created when the government puts the money back into the economy. What we don't see as clearly are the jobs that are lost or prevented when the government first has to take that money out of the very same economy. We see the lost or prevented jobs through chronic unemployment rates and a stagnant jobs market at a time when we should long ago have moved into a normal V-shaped economic recovery. Nor does this even guarantee saving teaching jobs. Good school boards, faced with the choice between a couple of good teachers or a pointless and overpaid bureaucrat, are probably going to keep the teachers and fire the bureaucrat. But this bill says they don't have to make that choice. Indeed, this bill says they are actually prohibited from doing anything that would reduce their spending below last year's level. What about Medicaid? A bipartisan group of legislators in my State of California tells us that they need this bailout money to save the State's Medicaid program. But bailing out bad management doesn't improve it. At the peak of the good times when California was taking in more money than ever before, it was already running a deficit of over $9 billion, almost 10 percent of its budget. Just 4 years ago, those same bipartisan legislatures voted Medicaid expansions that have increased its share of general fund spending from 14 percent to 19 percent. California offers such Medicaid options as acupuncture, chiropractic services, and psychological counseling. And now they are shocked, just shocked, that they keep running out of money. I love my State, but deficits that are made in California should stay in California. Mr. Speaker, with the Nation now some $13.2 trillion in debt, that is about 93 percent of the entire U.S. economy, it is time to invoke the first law of holes: When you are in one, stop digging. And if Congress doesn't invoke that law now, it is becoming increasingly clear that the American people will invoke it in November.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Before we add more bureaucracies to the equation, shouldn't we be asking how did the existing ones do? This administration ignored the oil spill contingency plan that NOAA's former response coordinator says could have burned off 95 percent of the oil spill from day one. It took them 8 days just to do a test burn. In the 2 weeks after the spill, 13 countries offered the assistance of their surface oil skimmers. The administration told them, ``Thanks, but no thanks.'' As the oil approached shore, the administration shut down oil skimming barges for lack of life jackets. Apparently, it never occurred to them to simply bring out more life jackets. Skimmers that could have removed 95 percent of the surface oil were blocked by the EPA for a month because they didn't remove 99.9985 percent. For more than a month, the governors of the States begged the administration for permission to take emergency action to protect their shorelines, to no avail. And now we want more bureaucrats? The problem is not a lack of bureaucracy. The problem is a tangled mess of rigid regulations, political posturing, contradictory edicts, and administrative incompetence that produced an emergency response worthy of the Keystone Kops. More of the same is not the answer. My advice to this administration and its congressional majority is this: If you can't lead and won't follow, then get out of the way.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in memory of Lorraine Fern Pipkin of Manhattan Beach, CA. Lorraine was born August 10, 1925 in North Dakota. She was raised on her grandparents' farm, working to help support her family during the Great Depression. At the age of 14 she moved with her mother to Yakima, Washington, and in the 1940s Lorraine moved to Los Angeles, where she went to work to fill the vital jobs vacated by GIs fighting in World War II. Lorraine loved being a mother and cherished time with her family and raising her two sons and daughters in Hawthorne. She was known for her wonderful cooking and open-house policy of hosting friends and family on a regular basis. Madam Speaker, Winston Churchill once said, ``There is no doubt that it is around the family and the home that all the greatest virtues, the most dominating virtues of human society, are created, strengthened and maintained.'' Lorraine spent her life raising a family, whom I have had the privilege to know for many years, who reflect the finest virtues of our nation, and I share in mourning their loss.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I would say in response that, yes, George W. Bush was responsible for what was then the worst debt in the Nation. That was a terrible public policy, and I make no apologies for it. But it needs to be pointed out that this administration and this Congress in just 2 years have run up as much debt as the irresponsible Bush administration did in all 8 years combined. Yes, that was irresponsible fiscal policy. Why in the world would you want to exacerbate and continue that bad policy? Republicans have learned their lesson. It appears that lesson has not yet been learned on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, anyone who has experienced firsthand the quiet panic that stalks every waking hour of an unemployed family knows how frightening and debilitating is chronic unemployment. You watch your savings evaporate, you watch your children going without the material things that their friends enjoy, and you count down the months or even days until you won't be able to make that crucial rent or house payment. That unemployment check is a lifeline in such times, and I fully appreciate and understand how desperately an unemployed family is looking to the security of getting 99 weeks of such checks, but I can't go along with this for a simple reason: The only way out of this nightmare of unemployment for these families is a job. Speaker Pelosi and others have said the most important thing we can do to create jobs is to extend unemployment benefits to 99 weeks because the unemployed would spend this money and stimulate the economy. Well, this analysis completely ignores the harsh and glaring fact that, before this money can be put back into the economy, it must first be taken out of the very same economy. We will have to take $34 billion more out of the economy in order to finance these extra benefits through November. In fact, this is the eighth such extension, totaling $120 billion. That means over $1,600 from the pocket of an average family of four in America. Since we don't have that money, we will have to borrow it from exactly the same capital pool that would otherwise have been available to loan to businesses seeking to expand jobs or to home buyers seeking to reenter the housing market or to consumers seeking to make consumer purchases. Remember, two-thirds of economic growth depend upon consumer spending, but that money now won't be there to loan for jobs and homes and economic growth. This is $34 billion of relief to the unemployed that they desperately need and that I desperately wish we could responsibly extend, but to do so would also mean $34 billion of fewer jobs. It would mean perpetuating this never-ending nightmare of unemployment for these families and, indeed, throwing more families into that nightmare. We have been told for several years now by Presidents Bush and Obama that stimulus spending would help the economy, but it hasn't, and there is a reason it hasn't. Government cannot inject a single dollar into the economy that it has not first taken out of that very same economy. Government cannot provide a dollar of temporary relief to the unemployed without first removing a dollar of permanent relief for the unemployed--namely, a job. The talking point du jour from the other side is, well, the Republicans have no problems giving tax breaks to the wealthy but won't extend a lifeline to the unemployed. Well, once again, they just don't get it. Milton Friedman once observed that spending is the effective rate of taxation. Spending can only be paid for in two ways--either by current taxes or by future taxes to retire borrowing. High taxes and deficits are just the symptom. The problem is the spending, and this is a spending bill. On May 9 of 1939, after nearly a decade of unemployment checks and stimulus spending and with unemployment at 17.2 percent, Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, made this stunning admission during a meeting with Democratic members of the House Ways and Means Committee: He said, No, gentlemen. We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. I have just one interest, and if I am wrong, as far as I am concerned, somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say, after 8 years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot. Mr. Speaker, let us heed the lessons of history before we totally destroy our economy. Perpetual unemployment checks put these desperate families farther and farther away from the only thing that can truly end their suffering--a real job. That is a fact nobody around here wants to face, but until we do, chronic unemployment will continue to stalk the land, and God forbid, a few years from now, another Democratic Treasury Secretary will have to make the same admission as Henry Morgenthau did 71 years ago.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. The jobless need jobs. Why is it that the majority doesn't understand that? We do not help the unemployed by making more of them. The gentleman from Florida asked an important question: What would have happened without all of the trillions of dollars of stimulus spending? It's becoming increasingly clear what would have happened: a normal V-shaped recovery. In every past economic recession, save one, the greater the economic contraction, the more dramatic has been the following recovery. That one exception was the recession of 1929 when Keynesian economics had come into vogue. Herbert Hoover responded to that recession by enacting the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that was a tax on tens of thousands of imported products. He increased Federal spending 60 percent in 4 years. He increased the Federal income tax rate from 25 to 63 percent. These were policies that were extended and expanded under Franklin Roosevelt, and as Roosevelt's own Treasury Secretary admitted in 1939, it did not work. The gentleman's history is simply wrong. The Depression ended and the great postwar economic boom began in 1946. You will find that, in 1946, Democrat Harry Truman cut Federal spending dramatically. In 1946, he cut the Federal budget from $80 billion down to $35 billion. He fired 10 million Federal employees. It was called demobilization, and the result was the entire postwar economic expansion. Mr. Speaker, it's said that those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it. I fear that the majority party is repeating a failed history of economic contraction at just a time when we need pro- growth policies.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, when the stimulus bill became law, unemployment stood at 8.2 percent. Today, a year and a half and hundreds of billions of dollars later, unemployment is 9.5 percent. This spending binge hasn't made things better. It has made things demonstrably worse because, before government can put money into the economy, it first takes that money out of the economy. We see the jobs created when government puts the money back, but we don't see the jobs that are lost, because government first took that money out of the economy. When we borrow trillions of dollars, we crowd out the very same capital pool that would otherwise have been available for businesses to create jobs; so those jobs don't get created, and the ranks of the unemployed grow. These are the same policies that turned the recession of 1929 into the Depression of the 1930s. Do we really want to repeat that lesson?

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in memory of Reginald Smart from Truckee, California. Reg was born in Winnipeg, Canada in 1916. After immigrating to the United States and earning his U.S. citizenship, Reg enlisted in the U.S. Army and served his country during WWII working for Pan American Airlines facilitating the movement of U.S. troops and officials. He moved to Truckee in 1947 with his wife, and opened his own business, the Good Fellows Grotto. Over the next 63 years, Reg was a prominent member of the Truckee community: opening a second business, serving on the school board and in numerous community organizations, including being the oldest living Mason in Truckee Lodge No. 200. Reg Smart's life was a true American story of an immigrant who loved and served his adopted country and was devoted to his family and community. Through his hard work and tireless dedication, he achieved a better life for himself, and undoubtedly improved the lives of everyone fortunate enough to know him.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember Bob Backus, a friend and devoted patriot. Bob and his wife of fifty-seven years, Nancy, lived in Lincoln, California. Bob and Nancy raised their children: Robert, Tami and Tina, who watched and learned from their father's commitment to serving his community and others. Bob served as the Chaplain for Vine Life Ministries, ready to respond to calls night or day, going wherever people needed help. He gave freely of his time to renovate and decorate old wagons for which he became famous, painting them red, white and blue and displaying them in local fairs and parades. Bob spent many years as an advocate for the founding principles of our nation, volunteering and serving as an elected member of local political groups. Thomas Jefferson once said that ``timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty;'' it is safe to say that Bob Backus not only chose to chance the waters himself, but through his ardent devotion to his beloved country assured a brighter future for his posterity. Bob will be sorely missed by his friends, family and the countless individuals whose lives he touched.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of U.S. Army Sergeant Joshua Hardt of Applegate, California. Today, I read a poem, written in Sergeant Hardt's memory, which serves as a testament to both his character and fidelity. Ode To a Fallen Hero (By Ting De Guevara) No one asked you to volunteer You did it because you loved your country More than pure piney woods, More than sparkling, high mountain lakes Or the sauntering, Sierra streams The possibilities were endless A police officer, a federal marshal, a wife and family Perhaps a fishing guide, for the flatlanders Who only dreamed of finding rainbows in the eddies Instead, you answered the call of duty Not for money, nor glory, nor fame But because you wanted to make A difference in the world You traded your Carhartts For Army green, gilded buttons, Spit and shine Your boyish smile The twinkle in your eye Betrayed who we really knew Our jovial, jaunting, Joshy Your country called you Like a far-away alarm, In the foggy dream of yesterday Fighting your way through Iraq Returning quieter, somber and more patient Knowing those things that only soldiers know, The sounds and horrors of war Still, your passion for fishing and golf Was unquenchable, Displaying your catch and taunting: ``Where's your Troutzilla?'' Oh you scoundrel! You rogue! How we envied your hole-in-one luck, your trout madness And your contagious laughter Filled our hearts, refreshing Like a cold bottle of beer On a hot summer's day Then Uncle Sam pinned those stripes on your sleeve Sending you to a strange and foreign land Where women and children were forced To surrender their last vestige of freedom There, in the frozen mountains In those smoke filled hours The tracers flying, rockets exploding Amid the trees like a firestorm You fought bravely My courageous son, Even as the world collapsed around you You remained steadfast To your men and your flag You may stand down, Sergeant Hardt Your tour is over, Your mission completed, We love you God bless you Farewell, our fallen hero.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join Congressman Gallegly in mourning the loss of Donna Jevens, a dedicated and devoted servant of our state of California and of our nation. I had the honor to work with Donna for a decade while I served in the California State Assembly. As my field representative, she attended to the needs of every constituent who sought our assistance and threw her heart and soul into the personal crises that they brought her. In a business where the standard advice is not to get emotionally involved, she cared deeply about everyone she dealt with and it showed. In the highly pressurized atmosphere of a district office, she was always the positive, sunny and cheerful personality that kept everyone else in the office motivated and upbeat. My heart goes out to her family. They do not mourn alone--the loss of Donna is keenly felt by all of us who knew her, who worked with her, or who number among the countless legion whom she helped during more than two decades of selfless public service.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the supporters of this bill tell us it's going to increase lending to small businesses. To do so, they're 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. I believe 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 has apparently escaped the supporters' attention that we are already doing precisely what the proposed new Small Business Lending Fund would do through the existing TARP Capital Purchase Program. Now that's not just my conclusion. That's the conclusion of the Special Inspector General of TARP, Neil Barofsky. He wrote to the Financial Services Committee on May 17, and observed, ``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, would we? Banks would already be lending like crazy. The only problem is, it doesn't work. But some Members can't bear to face the American people and admit that they have squandered billions of dollars of working families' hard-earned money. So, instead, they bring us more of the same. Now this places an additional $30 billion of taxpayer money at risk. We're told, Don't worry; we'll get that money back. When have we heard this song before? Oh, yes. When they bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, taxpayers have now lost $145 billion, heading to $400 billion. Don't worry; it'll be paid back. What is likely to happen to the $30 billion put at risk by 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 whose finances are unsound will accept these moneys, with little chance that they will actually be paid back. In fact, by removing the Special Inspector General from oversight of these funds, that risk is further aggravated. And just to be clear, there's 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 toward the requirements of this bill, not necessarily just loans to small businesses. Now, after a failed $700 billion TARP, $30 billion might not sound like a lot of money. 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 home buyers. 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 private sector loans to small businesses and home buyers and consumers. Under this administration and this Congress, the government is running a $1.5 trillion annual deficit. That's roughly $20,000 for every family of four in America. Well, where does that money come from? Well, 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 home buyers seeking to reenter the housing market or loan to consumers seeking to afford consumer purchases. And remember, two-thirds of economic growth directly depends upon those consumer purchases. But that money now is not available to loan to employers and to home buyers and to consumers to expand the economy because government has now borrowed it in order to expand government. That is the core of the problem. Now, I've 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 business, that same money won't be available to loan to another business. Government cannot inject a single dollar into the economy until it has first taken that same dollar out of that 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.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, suppose your family is deeply in debt, bills are piling up, your credit card interest is eating you alive, and finally you seek the help of a financial counselor. What's the first thing that debt counselor is going to say? He's going to say, the 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 your finances back under control. Mr. Speaker, 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 one 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.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Nevada City Fire Department (NCFD) on its 150th anniversary. In the early history of Nevada City, the town was plagued by wide- reaching fires, which burned the central business district to the ground five times between 1851 and 1863. The need for a firefighting force was clearly evident, and in June of 1860 the Nevada Hose Company, No. 1, the Eureka Hose Company, No. 2, and the Protection Hook & Ladder Company, No. 1 were formed. These companies were constituted entirely of volunteers and over the months that followed all three were consolidated into the Nevada City Fire Department. Today, in partnership with the Nevada County Consolidated Fire Department, the NCFD maintains a fully-staffed professional fire station that provides much-needed fire protection and emergency services in Nevada County. As our community gathers to celebrate this auspicious occasion, I am proud to recognize NCFD's 150 years of service and excellence.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the failure of this House to pass a budget at a time of unprecedented deficit spending speaks volumes of the House majority. In order to resolve a crisis, you must first be willing to face it; and if you can't face the problem, you can't deal with it. That is what the budget process is, the painful but necessary assessment of our financial affairs. Without it, there can't even be a theoretical solution. I've seen this before in California. As left-wing majorities took control of our financial affairs and boosted spending at a reckless pace, we watched the orderly budget process disintegrate into a mere sham. Unable and unwilling to face up to the consequences of their out- of-control spending, they simply abandoned the budget process. Ultimately, they brought the most prosperous State in our Nation to the brink of bankruptcy. Mr. Speaker, California is an example to be avoided, not imitated.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Joan Sue Huey. Joan Huey was born on September 29, 1928 in a small farming village in China. In 1947, she married her life's love, Albert Huey, who served in the United States Army during World War II. In 1948 they welcomed the birth of their son, Dennis. They immigrated to the United States in 1951, settling in San Francisco to seek a better life for their growing family, which by then included two beautiful daughters, Dora and Diana. Throughout the years, Joan juggled the hectic duties of being a wife and mother. She helped manage the family finances and worked as a seamstress to provide extra income. But she was happiest when cooking traditional Chinese meals and delicacies; taking great pride in being an excellent chef and she especially looked forward to cooking for her grandsons. Joan was an accomplished orchid horticulturist, who proudly displayed her flowering orchids throughout her home and generously shared the lovely blooms with family and friends. After the passing of her husband, Joan devoted her time to her family until her own passing on May 15, 2010 at the age of 81. The legacy embodied by her loving family is a testament to the ongoing story of American opportunity. Madam Speaker, Joan Huey was a devoted wife, mother, and grandmother and I am proud to rise today in remembrance of her life, and to express my condolences to her family.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to take strong exception to the speech by the President of Mexico here in this Chamber today. The Mexican Government has made it very clear for many years that it holds American sovereignty in contempt, and President Calderon's behavior as a guest of the Congress today confirms and underscores this attitude. It is highly inappropriate for the President of Mexico to lecture Americans on American immigration law, just as it would be for Americans to lecture Mexico on its own laws. It is obvious that President Calderon does not understand the nature of America or the purpose of our immigration law. Unlike Mexico's immigration law, which is brutally exclusionary, the purpose of America's law is not to keep people out. It is to assure that as people come to the United States, they do so with the intention of becoming Americans and of raising their children as Americans. Unlike Mexico, our Nation embraces legal immigration, and what makes that possible is assimilation. A century ago, President Teddy Roosevelt put it this way. He said, ``In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language. And we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is a loyalty to the American people.'' That is how we've created one great Nation from all the peoples of the world. The largest group of immigrants now comes from Mexico. A recent RAND study found that during the 20th century, while our immigration laws were actually enforced, assimilation worked, and it made possible the swift attainment of the American Dream for millions of immigrants seeking to escape the conditions of Mexico. That is the broader meaning of our Nation's motto, ``e pluribus unum''--from many people, one people, the American people. But there is now an element in our political structure that seeks to undermine that concept of e pluribus unum. It seeks to hyphenate Americans, to develop linguistic divisions, to assign rights and preferences based on race and ethnicity, and to elevate devotion to foreign ideologies and traditions while at the same time denigrating American culture, American values, and American founding principles. In order to do so, they know that they have to stop the process of assimilation. And in order to do that, they have to undermine our immigration laws. It is an outrage that a foreign head of state would appear in this Chamber and actively seek to do so. And it is a disgrace that he would be cheered on from the left wing of the White House and from many Democrats here in Congress. Arizona has not adopted a new immigration law. All it has done is to enforce existing law that this President refuses to enforce. It's hardly a radical policy to suggest that if an officer on a routine traffic stop encounters a driver with no driver's license, no passport, and who doesn't speak English, that maybe that individual might be here illegally. And to those who say we must reform our immigration laws, I reply, We don't need to reform them. We need to enforce them, just as every other government does, just as Mexico does. Above all, this is a debate of, by, and for the American people. If President Calderon wishes to participate in that debate, I invite him to obey our immigration laws, apply for citizenship, do what 600,000 legal immigrants to our Nation are doing right now, learn our history and our customs, and become an American, and then he will have every right to participate in that debate. Until then, I would politely invite him to have the courtesy while a guest of this Congress to abide by the fundamental rules of diplomacy between civilized nations not to meddle in each other's domestic debates.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Does the gentlelady have any additional speakers?

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This measure offers yet another example of how the Endangered Species Act has put a gun to the head of the West. The unreasonable effect of this law is now impoverishing millions of people across the country. In California communities, it has devastated the agricultural sector of our economy, and it threatens us all with permanent water shortages, skyrocketing food prices, and chronic unemployment. The measure before us today seeks to spend roughly $40 million through 2023 for research, management, operation, and maintenance and other annual noncapital expenditures in order to keep ESA litigation at bay in the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins. It's cosponsored by Representatives of both parties, not because it will produce a single drop of additional water for this region but, rather, because it will forestall additional endless ESA lawsuits. These programs only exist and only command bipartisan support because these steps are mandated by the ESA under threat of the region losing further access to its own water. And at some point, we're going to have to consider major changes to the ESA before it further depresses our economy, strangles our agriculture, and depletes our Treasury. Let me offer one of the examples of changes that I think needs to be made. The administration is now pursuing the deliberate destruction of four perfectly good hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River that generate 155 megawatts of the cleanest and cheapest electricity on the planet at the cost to ratepayers and taxpayers of nearly $500 million to tear down. This is to restore fish habitat for a few hundred salmon. When I visited the region a few weeks ago, I asked, If the salmon population was in decline, why don't we just build a fish hatchery? The Macaulay fish hatchery in Juneau, for example, produces 170 million salmon every year. And the answer was, We already have a fish hatchery below the dams at Iron Gate, but the Endangered Species Act doesn't allow us to count the millions of fish that it produces. This is insane. In this case, it's going to cost us $40 million, according to the CBO, on a program that lacks explicit goals and is running outrageous overhead--22 percent in one case. Now, let me emphasize this: This program doesn't even set specific recovery goals, so there's no rational way of judging success or failure either now or in the future. It is simply a bureaucratic perpetual spending machine. The good news is, this program does include fish hatcheries, but without any numerical standard for success, their production becomes irrelevant to the program. We're squandering the earnings of our citizens on bureaucratic paperwork and Rube Goldberg contraptions with no rational standard for success instead of investing that money for new water supplies. This bill continues a folly that our Nation and our economy can no longer afford. I realize that many of the supporters feel that this is the path of least resistance within the current legal framework in order to continue to use the water projects that we've already paid for. Well, that may be the case. But the path of least resistance is destroying our economy, bankrupting our country, and perhaps it's time we took the path less well traveled, the path of common sense. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution honors the life, achievements and contributions of Mr. Floyd Dominy, the longest-serving commissioner in the history of the Bureau of Reclamation. Our colleague, Congressman Adrian Smith, has introduced this bipartisan resolution because Mr. Dominy was a Nebraskan, having been born on a farm in the western part of that State. But while Mr. Dominy hailed from Nebraska, his achievements are known worldwide. It was that hard scrabble life of eking out a living on a dry Nebraska farm that propelled Floyd Dominy into building the dams and water projects that have made possible the success of American agriculture in the western United States. During his tenure at the Bureau of Reclamation, he played a major role in the authorization and construction of numerous Federal multi- purpose dams and water projects in the United States, including the Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona, Flaming Gorge Dam in Utah, the San Luis Unit in Central California, the Central Arizona Project and the Trinity Division of the Central Valley Project in northern California. To this day, these projects have created some of the most productive farmland in the world, they have provided water to a growing population in the arid West, and they've generated clean, renewable and emissions- free hydropower. His contributions to the Nation's water, power and food supply, its recreation and its environment stand as monumental examples of how visionaries like Mr. Dominy have made this country the beacon of freedom and opportunity and prosperity. This resolution honors that legacy. But more than a legacy, it is a lesson for our Nation. Floyd Dominy stood as a giant in an era when the central objective of our Federal water and power policy was to provide an abundance of both. The great dams and hydroelectric projects of that era, of which Floyd Dominy was a driving force, produced the water and electricity that made possible the prosperity of our Nation. Imagine an era when water and power was so cheap that many communities didn't even bother to measure the stuff. But in the 1970s, a radical and retrograde ideology seeped into our water and power policy. This ideology rejected abundance as our principal objective and replaced it with the rationing of shortages that have been caused by our abandoning abundance as our principal objective. The great builders like Floyd Dominy were cast aside and forgotten, even while we continued to rely on the great public works that they had produced. We've now lived a generation under this ideology and the results, chronic shortages of water and power, skyrocketing prices for electricity, withering agriculture and declining prosperity. Floyd Dominy is an American hero. He deserves so much more than a resolution. But, in a sense, he has it. The great water and hydroelectric projects that he produced stand as a monument to his vision and foresight and dedication. And they stand as a road map for this Nation when we finally get serious about dealing with the chronic shortages that the current generation of policymakers has produced. I'd urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan measure. I yield back the balance of my time.