Congressman McClintock today delivered the following remarks on the House floor:

Keep Yosemite Tourist-Friendly
House Chamber, Washington, D.C.
April 24, 2013

Mr. Speaker:

            I rise today in strong opposition to a proposal by the National Park Service to remove long-standing tourist facilities from Yosemite National Park, including bicycle and raft rentals, snack facilities, gift shops, horseback riding, the ice rink at Curry Village, tennis courts and swimming pools, the art center and the historic stone Sugar Pine Bridge.  These facilities date back generations and provide visitors with a wide range of amenities to enhance their stay at – and their enjoyment of – this world-renowned national park.

            To add insult to insanity, all this comes with a quarter-billion dollar price tag.

           Yosemite belongs to the American people, and the Park Service’s job is to welcome them and accommodate them when they visit their park – not restrict and harass them.  Indeed, Yosemite was set aside nearly 150 years ago by legislation signed by Abraham Lincoln specifically for “the public use, resort and recreation…for all time.”  This proposal fundamentally changes the entire purpose for which Yosemite was set aside in the first place.

        Tourists don’t go where they’re not wanted.  Yosemite competes with thousands of other vacation destinations, and the more inconvenient and unpleasant Park managers make it for Yosemite visitors, the fewer visitors they’ll have.  That might be more convenient to them, but it will devastate the economy of all the surrounding communities whose economies depend on tourism.

            The Park Service is attempting to justify this as a court-ordered response to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.  This is disingenuous.  The settlement agreement they refer to simply requires that a plan be adopted consistent with current law relative to the Merced River – it does not mandate such radical changes in long-standing visitor services and amenities.

            Indeed, former Congressman Tony Coelho, who authored the act that designated the Merced under provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, has just released a strong letter condemning the proposal, saying in no uncertain terms:

            “The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was never intended to apply to the Merced River within Yosemite National Park at all.  The Merced River within Yosemite National Park is protected and regulated by the National Park Service and has never needed an overlay of inconsistent and confusing regulation…The Merced River in Yosemite Valley has been recreational for almost 150 years.  Yosemite Valley has never been wilderness.  Any plan which proceeds should not change any infrastructure or ban any activities traditionally carried on in Yosemite Valley.”

            Indeed, when Mr. Coelho authored the legislation designating the Merced as Wild and Scenic, these tourist facilities already existed and nowhere in the bill’s findings is there any mention of an intention to force their closure or to override Park policies.  In fact, many of the facilities slated for removal are not even on the Merced River and do not in any way impede or affect its flow.

            The officials of the National Park Service are clearly not required to take these actions.  It is becoming increasingly apparent that they want to take them and that they intend to take them, despite widespread public opposition from all but the most radical elements of the Environmental Left.

            Indeed, when 13 members of the California Congressional delegation, including liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans alike, asked for an extension of the public comment period, the Park Service grudgingly extended it by all of 12 days.  Twelve days.

            It is obvious that Park officials have already made up their minds and are merely walking through the formalities.  I believe that this matter and related issues of public access cry out for a Congressional investigation.

           In the mean time, if members of the public wish to protest the elimination of many of the Yosemite Valley’s tourist amenities and iconic landmarks, their time is running out.  My website, at mcclintock.house.gov provides guidance on how people can protest this action, and I strongly urge them to do so.

U.S. Claims Court To Hear Case Involving Unlawful Seizure of Livestock by U.S. Forest Service

In a published decision handed down April 4, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims denied a U.S. Forest Service motion to dismiss in a case brought by Arizona rancher Daniel Gabino Martinez asserting a Constitution Fifth Amendment taking of property in the nature of cattle.   The cattle were grazing both on patented lands, and utilizing vested water sources on rangelands appurtenant to the ranch in the area at issue.  The Martinez complaint alleges a taking of property without a either a court order or a warrant, and the denial of Constitutional and statutory due process of law.

Mr. Martinez is one the many victims of the longstanding policy of the federal agencies to extinguish property interests on federally managed lands such as vested water rights, improvements, forage rights and rights of ways without compensation to further their conservation agenda.  Mr. Martinez purchased his rights from his predecessors-in-interest on a ranch that was established in 1882.  The property interests he acquired had vested under the “local laws, customs and court decisions of the times” when the ranch was founded and were acknowledged by Congress in the Mining Act of July 26, 1866.  The property rights had vested in Mr. Martinez by purchase through an exhaustive chain of title through a series of contracts, parol sales and wills dating back to 1882.

Even though Mr. Martinez offered to sign a grazing permit for those areas beyond his vested property rights, the Forest Service denied the permit because Gabino’s  father, Abe Martinez, would not waive his property rights to the agency by signing a “Waiver of Permit”.   The confiscation of the Martinez cattle and source of income for the ranch was part of a thinly veiled attempt by the Forest Service to drive Mr. Martinez out of business and destroy the value of his ranch.  Attorney for the case is Mark Pollot of Boise, Idaho.

(Court House New Service)

PETA Plans to Fly Drones That Would ‘Stalk Hunters’

PETA says it’s actively shopping for a drone to monitor hunters

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is actively shopping for a drone that would “stalk hunters,” the organization said Monday.

The group says it will “soon have some impressive new weapons at its disposal to combat those who gun down deer and doves” and that it is “shopping for one or more drone aircraft with which to monitor those who are out in the woods with death on their minds.”

The group says it will not weaponize the drones, but will use them to film potentially illegal hunting activity and turn it over to law enforcement.

(U.S. News)

Top Ten Crazy Global Warming Solutions

Here’s the top ten list from the California Chapter of American’s for Prosperity.
#10 Wrap Greenland in a Blanket
#9 Make More Clouds
#8 Giant Space Mirrors
#7 Make Us All Vegans
#6 Live in Trash with Heat from Sewers
#5 Algae Covered Buildings
#4 Mechanical Soda Trees
#3 Skyscraper Farms
#2 Less Humans
# 1 Craziest idea to solve global warming — A World of Midgets with Catlike Eyes Who Don’t Eat Meat.

(You Tube)

Congressman McClintock’s Letter to Park Service Takes Issue with Attempts to Block Public Access In Yosemite

In a letter to Park Service Superintendant Don Nuebacher, Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA) criticizes the National Park Service Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) regarding Yosemite National Park and the Merced River which runs through it.  In particular, McClintock takes issue with the DEIS proposals which eliminate the public’s access within the park and river contrary to the intent of Congress when it created Yosemite.

(Sierra Sun Times)

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

April 12, 2013

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

Dear Mr. Neubacher:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Tom McClintock

Click for PDF copy

PNP comment: Congressman McClintock is right on. The Greenie Ph.D. lives in a fantasy world twisted with lies. — Editor Liz Bowen

Cal Watchdog

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

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

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

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

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

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

McClintock E-News
January 2013

       The federal debt limit and the approaching fiscal cliff were among the issues debated and voted on by Congress this month along with a Hurricane Sandy relief bill, to which unrelated and non-emergency spending was added by amendment.  Congressman McClintock discussed these and other matters in interviews and floor speeches conducted throughout the month.

       In California, the Congressman held town hall meetings in Rocklin and Sonora on the 29th and 30th of January.

 Debt Limit 

Congress approved legislation on January 23rd to abolish the federal debt limit for a period of nearly four months.  Congressman McClintock voted against the legislation, and he discussed the bill in remarks delivered on the House floor, noting that the legislation set spending levels far beyond the limits set by the House budget:

HR 325: Carte Blanche Credit
House Chamber, Washington D.C.
January 23, 2013

Mr. Speaker:

The House is poised to pass HR 325.  I respect the sincerity of its supporters, but I must firmly dissent.

This bill accommodates spending at ruinous levels far beyond the limits set by the House budget.  It sets a terrible precedent by abolishing the debt limit for nearly four months, giving an unlimited credit card to this administration. 

I think members will be stunned by the borrowing that this moratorium makes possible – certainly thousands of dollars of new debt heaped on every household in America.

House Republicans have passed two budget plans that put our nation back on a path to fiscal solvency.  If the debt limit were increased within that trajectory at two month intervals, it would require only small and incremental reforms each time.   Click to read full remarks.

“Debt Limit” click to watch remarks.

Fiscal Cliff Deal

On New Year’s Day the House was in session voting on legislation to avert the so-called fiscal cliff.  As Congressman McClintock explained in the remarks below, the legislation that was passed actually brings the nation much closer to the real fiscal cliff – a sovereign debt crisis:

We’ve heard so much about the January fiscal cliff that I’m afraid we’ve lost sight of the real fiscal cliff just a few years ahead of us: the approaching bankruptcy of our nation.  Sadly, Congress began the new year by taking us much closer to that cliff.

The bill did some good things: it protects individuals earning less than $400,000 from tax hikes to Clinton-era levels and it protects millions of middle class taxpayers from being ravaged by the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The House could have passed a clean bill simply dealing with that issue.  Instead, it agreed to Senate language that postpones the $1.2 trillion of scheduled spending reductions under the sequester and actually increases federal spending by more than $300 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office — and more than $600 billion when you include the totality of new social and corporate welfare spending and tax exemptions to reward politically connected special interests.

By doing so, it turned the bill’s tax relief provisions into a mere illusion.

The truth is that once the government has spent a dollar, it has already decided to tax it.  The only question is whether it taxes that dollar now or taxes it later by running a deficit.  Since Congress postponed the spending reductions contained in the sequester and we continue to spend money we don’t have, the net result of this measure is simply to transfer OUR tax bill to our children.  And since Congress just approved between $300 billion and $600 billion of NEW spending, we have not merely transferred our generation’s current bills to their generation, but we have also added new burdens on them as well.  Click to read full remarks.

“Fiscal Cliff Deal” click to watch remarks.

Rule for Hurricane Sandy Legislation

Congressman McClintock on January 15th discussed the rule bringing emergency hurricane relief legislation to the House floor.  In his remarks he noted the average cost of the $50 billion bill would be $450 for every household in America, that 90 percent of the money in the legislation was not slated to be spent in the current year, and that the funds were not required to be spent in the hurricane area.  In his remarks he also discussed the mixing of non-emergency funding into an emergency bill.

Rule on Hurricane Sandy
House Chamber, Washington D.C.
January 15, 2013 

Mr. Speaker:

This rule brings us a spending package of more than $50 billion that is supposed to be for emergency repairs in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.

That averages $450 from every household in America.  $450. 

These families have a right to expect that this money is being used for genuine emergency relief.  But it’s not. 

According to the Congressional Budget Office, more than 90 percent won’t even be spent this year.  That’s not emergency relief.

Sixteen billion is to quintuple the size of the Community Development Block Grant Program.  That’s the slush fund that pays for such dubious projects as doggie day care centers – and it doesn’t even have to be spent in the hurricane area.  Click to read full remarks.

“Rule on Hurricane Sandy” click to watch remarks.

Congressman McClintock also authored a column this month examining emergency relief measures and the Congressional appropriations process.  In the column he further underscored the importance of the expectation that funds for emergency relief will be spent for emergency relief:

“After Us, the Flood”
By Congressman Tom McClintock

Americans have always reached out to those in need, and the devastation suffered by victims of Hurricane Sandy requires the federal government’s assistance to make the repairs required by storm damage.  Disasters that overwhelm local and state resources have always been shared by the nation and that’s as it should be.

But the very real suffering of Hurricane victims who require immediate relief shouldn’t be used as an excuse for rushing billions of dollars of unrelated, non-emergency spending through Congress. 

Americans have become so numb to trillion-dollar bailouts, deficits and platinum coins that we’ve lost sight of how much $50 billion really is.  In real-life dollars, it averages about $450 for every household in the nation.  That’s the bill for this single round of “emergency relief” for an average family that’s struggling to keep itself financially afloat.   They have every right to expect that this money is really going for emergency relief to the victims of Hurricane Sandy.

Most of it isn’t.    

Two billion dollars is for highway repairs anywhere in the country covered by any disaster declaration in 2011, 2012 or yet to occur in the next ten years – including up to $20 million each for American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands – that aren’t even in the same ocean as Hurricane Sandy.

Sixteen billion dollars (about $150 for your family) goes to quintuple the Community Development Block Grant Program.  That’s a political slush fund that pays for such projects as a “Doggie Day Care Center” in Ohio and a “Day at the Circus” for Nyack, New York.  Click to read full column. 

Town Hall Meetings

Town hall meetings were held by Congressman McClintock in Rocklin and Sonora on January 29th and 30th.  Topics discussed included the debt limit debate, tax reform, gun control and immigration measures pending before the Congress, and access to natural resources and water.

The Fiscal Cliff

Congressman Tom McClintock

House Chamber, Washington, D.C.

December 12, 2012

Mr. Speaker:

            To understand the federal budget mess and the so-called fiscal cliff, it’s important to remember three numbers: 39, 37 and 64.

            Thirty nine percent is the combined increase of inflation and population over the last ten years.   Thirty nine percent.

            Thirty seven percent is the increase in revenues during the same period.  That’s despite the recession and tax cuts.  Not quite keeping place, but pretty close.

            Sixty four is what’s killing us.  Sixty four percent is the increase in federal spending in that period.  That’s nearly twice the rate of inflation and population over the last ten years.

            The spending side of the fiscal cliff is the so-called sequester: automatic cuts in federal spending.  To hear some tell it, these cuts will mean the end of western civilization.

            Hardly.  After a 64 percent increase in expenditures this decade, the sequester doesn’t actually cut spending at all: it simply limits spending growth next year to about a half a percent.

            I opposed the budget deal that created the sequester last year because it fell woefully short of what Standard and Poors clearly warned was necessary to preserve the nation’s triple-A credit rating.  Sadly, that fear was born out.  But now, the sequester is all we have.

It’s true that defense takes the brunt of it, but does our defense spending today really need to be higher – inflation adjusted — than it was at the height of the Vietnam War, when we faced down the Soviet Union and had 500,000 combat troops in the field?

The sequester isn’t stepping off a cliff – it’s taking one step back from the cliff.

            The tax increases, however, are a different matter.  Without intervention, the federal tax burden will balloon 21 percent at the stroke of midnight on New Year’s Eve, taking somewhere between two and three thousand dollars from an average family.  This summer, the House passed legislation to protect our nation from such a calamity, but Mr. Obama vowed to veto it and the Senate blocked it.

Instead, Mr. Obama tells us that he will veto any plan that keeps taxes from going up on those very wealthy folks making over $200,000, who, he says, need to pay their fair share.

(I suppose fairness is in the eye of the beholder.  The top one percent earns 17 percent of all income but pays 37 percent of all income taxes.  But that’s beside the point).

The fine point of it is that a lot of those very wealthy folks making over $200,000 aren’t very wealthy and they aren’t even folks: they’re 1.3 million struggling small businesses filing under sub-chapter S.  Our small businesses produce two-thirds of the new jobs in our economy.

This battle IS very much FOR the middle class.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Mr. Obama’s tax increase on the so-called wealthy will actually throw some 200,000 middle and working class families into unemployment.  Two hundred thousand.  And that’s the optimistic estimate.  An independent analysis by Ernst and Young puts that figure at closer to 700,000 lost jobs.

            That’s because the President’s taxes would slam 84 percent of net small business income – that’s precisely the income used to support and expand the labor force.

            In their blind pursuit of an “eat the rich” ideology, Mr. Obama and his acolytes are imposing a policy that would utterly devastate hundreds of thousands of middle class families who depend on the jobs these small businesses provide.

            And for what?  To wring enough money to fund Mr. Obama’s spending spree for a grand total of eight days.  It’s telling that three-fourths of the new taxes he has proposed would be used to finance the new spending that he has also proposed.

            Republicans don’t want to see taxes go up on anyone, period.  We don’t want to see this government willfully throw hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work by this policy.

            The President obviously believes that in the 11th hour, Republicans will have no choice but ultimately to protect as many taxpayers as we possibly can, since the only alternative will be tax increases on everyone, including the job creators.  He may be right.

            But that would mean a bleak and bitter new year for all those families who will watch helplessly as their jobs evaporate before their eyes.

            Let us pray the President has a change of heart before setting this calamity in motion.

From:

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515-0504

July 17, 2012

To:

Michael R. Peevey

President, California Public Utilities Commission

505 Van Ness Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear Mr. Peevey:

I write regarding PacifiCorp’s application to accelerate the collection of the $13.76 million Klamath surcharge authorized by the Klamath Hydro-electric Settlement Agreement. I object to this request to impose another rate increase on PacifiCorp’s California customers based upon the unlikelihood that Congress will ever pass the KHSA into law.

One of the prerequisites to implement the KHSA is enactment of federal authorizing legislation. Although such legislation has been introduced, it has not moved. In fact, the only indication of Congressional sentiment regarding the KHSA was a vote on February 18, 2011, when the House adopted an appropriations amendment to prohibit the use of funds for the Klamath Dam Removal and Sedimentation Study (112^th Congress Roll Call No. 111).

As chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee I can tell you that sentiment in the House is very much opposed to destroying four hydroelectric dams capable of producing 155 MW of reliable hydroelectricity and the concomitant destruction of the Iron Gate fish hatchery that produces 5 million salmon smolts each year.

There is no reasonable justification for assuming the KHSA will be implemented at any time in the foreseeable future, and, therefore, no reasonable basis for imposing an additional rate increase on PacificCorp customers. In fact, with passage of the March 31, 2012 deadline for the Secretary of the Interior to make a determination on dam removal and the indefinite deferral of any such decision, the Public Utilities Commission should immediately suspend collection of the existing Klamath surcharge.

Sincerely,

Tom McClintock

July 18, 2012

Listen LIVE !

http://www.ksyc1039.com/live

McClintock objects to PacifiCorp’s accelerated surcharge

News in Jefferson Country from Pie N Politics.com editor Liz Bowen: U.S. Congressman Tom McClintock, from California’s fourth district, is going to bat for citizens in Siskiyou County.

Yesterday, McClintock sent a letter to the California Public Utilities Commission objecting to an accelerated collection of thirteen million dollars for Klamath dam removal. Pacific Corp has asked for a second surcharge to be placed on its customers for dam removal. The first surcharge is already in place on local power bills in Siskiyou County.

Congressman McClintock actually claims demolition of the four Klamath Dams is not a done deal.

One of the requirements of the Klamath Hydro-Electric Settlement Agreement is approval of federal legislation with funding. That legislation is stuck in the Water and Power Subcommittee and, hum,  Congressman McClintock is chairman of that committee.

Accordingly, McClintock said that many Representatives in Congress are opposed to destroying the four Klamath hydro-electric dams, which are capable of producing one-hundred-fifty-five mega watts of reliable electricity.

And he added that the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery produces over five million salmon each year, which will be lost if the Iron Gate Dam is removed.

# # #

From CA. Congressman Tom McClintock’s May 2012 newsletter

      Eliminating federal red tape and excessive litigation in order to create healthy forests and forest economies was the focus of a joint hearing held May 14th in Montrose, Colorado by the Subcommittee on Water and Power (of which Congressman McClintock is Chairman) and the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.

      In opening remarks at the hearing Congressman McClintock illustrated the issue at hand, stating:  “An old forester in my district summed up the problem we are here to assess when he said, “The excess timber is going to come out of the forest one way or another.  Either it will be carried out or it will be burned out.  But it will come out.”

      “A generation ago,” continued the Congressman, “we carried it out and the result was a thriving economy and a healthy forest.  But then a radical and retrograde ideology was introduced into our public policy transforming sound forest management practices into what can only be described as benign neglect.”

      “The result is now clear and undeniable: economically devastated communities, closed timber mills, unemployed families, overgrown forests, overdrawn watersheds, jeopardized transmission lines, rampant disease and pestilence and increasingly intense and frequent forest fires.

“That is the story of Montrose, Colorado and Saratoga, Wyoming, of Quincy and Camino and Sonora (little towns in my district in California’s Sierra-Nevada) – once thriving and prosperous communities that have been devastated by these policies.

      “When the mills in my district closed in 2009 the owner made it very clear that although the economic downturn was a catalyst, the underlying cause was the fact that 2/3 of the timber they depended upon was held up by environmental litigation.

      “Despite the recession, they still had enough business to keep the mills open — and to keep these families employed — if the environmental Left had not cut off the timber, those mills depended upon.

“This is not environmentalism.  True environmentalists recognize the damage done by overgrowth and overpopulation and recognize the role of sound, sustainable forest management practices in maintaining healthy forests.”

      The Congressman’s full opening statement from the committee hearing can be read here .