WHY I VOTED NO ON THE OBAMACARE BUDGET
Instead of a straight-forward measure to repeal Obamacare completely and to replace it with free market reforms that Republicans have long advocated, Congress has instead chosen a too-clever-by-half manipulation of the rules that I believe will make repealing Obamacare harder and slower, while further disrupting an already faltering health care market. Worse, by misusing the budget and reconciliation process, Congress has squandered its most important tools to bring spending under control before we bankrupt our country.
THE FLAWS OF A RECONCILIATION STRATEGY TO REPEAL OBAMACARE:
The annual budget sets levels of spending for the federal government. Once a budget is adopted, reconciliation provides for a single bill that can bypass the 60-vote procedural hurdle in the Senate – but it can only be used to the extent it modifies those provisions that have a direct fiscal impact on the Treasury. It can make no other changes. The joint leadership strategy is to use this process, in tandem with regulatory changes by the new Administration, to remove as much of the fiscal aspects of Obamacare as possible. It relies on follow-up legislation that will require 60-votes to actually repeal and replace Obamacare. And therein lies the problem.
Reconciliation does not repeal Obamacare. Rather, it takes out some parts and leaves others, making Republicans responsible for the ensuing market, without the votes to finish the job or replace it with free-market reforms. Since Senate Democrats are unlikely to cooperate on post-reconciliation fixes, we had better be very clear what the health care system will then look like under the best-case scenario.
Reconciliation can end the Obamacare subsides and replace them with tax credits. It can repeal the taxes and the tax penalty that is used to enforce the individual mandate. It can end the non-compliance penalties on businesses and return Medicaid to its pre-Obamacare condition.
However, reconciliation cannot repeal the underlying law. Insurance companies will still be required to offer Obamacare-compliant policies and still be required to guarantee issuance of policies. State governments will continue to be the primary enforcers of the insurance mandates, and will still have to approve any new plans.
In those states willing to approve non-compliant plans, insurers will have to decide whether to risk civil liability for selling consumers policies that are out of compliance with federal law.
HHS does have significant latitude through the regulatory process to re-define the parameters of many of these mandates, but the law will still require that the new HHS guidance is consistent with benefits found in a “typical” policy. It will still be bound by the Administrative Procedures Act that forbids changes that are considered “arbitrary and capricious.” And, ironically, this latitude will also depend on maintaining the Chevron deference doctrine. Chevron deference is a doctrine that courts will generally not question agency interpretation of laws – a doctrine the House has already voted to end.
What does all this mean to consumers? Since healthy people are no longer required to buy insurance and insurance companies are still required to issue policies to all comers, premiums for Obamacare-compliant plan premiums could sky-rocket. The availability of non-compliant policies will depend on how much legal risk insurers are willing to assume and whether the individual state is willing to approve them, meaning health insurance could become unavailable in many markets. The passage of follow-up legislation will be absolutely vital.
We are taking this path solely to by-pass a Democratic filibuster (because Senate Republicans stubbornly refuse to reform cloture) and to give the new President an early victory. We need to ask ourselves how this strategy is likely to play out. The House will send a reconciliation bill to the Senate. Under intense Democratic opposition, warning that it will cause chaos in health care, the reconciliation bill will pass and any follow-up legislation will be blocked. Obamacare will continue to collapse. Indeed, its collapse may accelerate because of added uncertainties in the market.
Democrats have already announced what their response will be: “Republicans passed this over our objections; we warned it would destabilize your health care; it has; and we Democrats will not let them get away with half-measures to try and mask the damage they’ve done.” The system will continue to deteriorate and public outrage will continue to build against Republicans for “breaking the ACA.” As the House sends reform measures over to the Senate, Democrats will block them with the refrain: “you broke it; you fix it; and this doesn’t do it.” The political dynamic, once favorable to Republican reforms, will have shifted. Under increasing public pressure, Republican attrition will ultimately force Congress to abandon the effort and extend Obamacare indefinitely.
Fortunately, there is an alternative. Pass a clean bill out of the House that completely repeals Obamacare and immediately replaces it with the patient-centered system long advocated by House Republicans. As Obamacare continues its collapse and public outrage mounts against Democrats for imposing the ACA, Republicans are in a strong position to say, “We warned Obamacare would fail; it has failed; here is the reform that will save your family’s health care; but the same Senate Democrats who created this fiasco now stand in the way.” With the House having passed the rescue bill, the President calling for it and Senate Republicans clamoring to pass it, pressure on the eight hold-out Democrats would be enormous. The Senate could then force Democrats to engage in a genuine filibuster until public pressure and Democratic attrition break it. The clean bill could then go to the President within months.
The tragedy is that if the “clean bill” option failed, the reconciliation option would still be available. Obamacare would continue to unravel on its own and the public would increasingly demand relief. But if the reconciliation option fails, the political dynamic will have already shifted, Republicans will have lost the high ground, and the clean bill option becomes improbable.
THE MISUSE OF THE BUDGET AND SQUANDERING OF THE RECONCILIATION BILL:
I also object to the misuse of the budget resolution for this purpose. Although it is described and intended as the pre-requisite for the reconciliation bill on Obamacare, it is nevertheless a budget resolution that maintains our current spending trajectory. Under the trajectory set by this resolution, the national debt will balloon from $20 trillion to $30 trillion over the next ten years and never balance. This poses a severe risk of a sovereign debt crisis within the decade. True, we are now beginning the 2018 budget process that can correct this trajectory – but only if the House passes it, which it failed to do last year. And it begins the 2018 budget process with Republicans having already endorsed an unsustainable fiscal course.
Now that we have a Republican president, the reconciliation bill is the most powerful tool we have to actually bring spending under control before we bankrupt our country – and we only get one per budget year. Not only is it ill-suited to repealing Obamacare, I am afraid that by using it in this fashion, we are squandering one of the last chances we have to bring mandatory spending under control before it bankrupts our country.
The legislation discussed in this vote note is S.Con.Res. 3.Read More
Congressman McClintock discusses his proposal for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution (introduced as House Joint Resolution 12). House floor, January 11, 2017.
Time to Get Serious About a Balanced Budget Amendment
In the last eight years, our nation’s debt has doubled. That means the Obama administration has borrowed as much money in eight years as our government borrowed in the 220 years between the first day of the George Washington administration until the last day of the George W. Bush administration.
Our interest costs are now eating us alive, and last year, the Congressional Budget Office warned that within six years on our current trajectory, interest payments on the debt will exceed what we now spend for our entire defense budget.
Before we can provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare we have to be able to pay for it, and our massive debt directly threatens our ability to do so. History warns us that nations that bankrupt themselves aren’t around very long.
I am confident that the new administration clearly understands the peril this poses to our country. The nomination of Mick Mulvaney to head the Office of Management and Budget is a powerful signal that this danger will soon be addressed aggressively and effectively.
This debt is our generation’s doing and our generation’s responsibility to set right. When we do so, we must leave behind the mechanisms to assure that reckless borrowing never threatens our government again.
For this reason, last week I reintroduced a proposal for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, House Joint Resolution 12.
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 humbly realized that they couldn’t possibly foresee the circumstances and conditions that may confront future generations. They resisted the temptation to micro-manage 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 naturally guide future decisions to comport with these principles.
In crafting a balanced budget amendment, we need to maintain these qualities. We should not 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.
In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote this observation to John Taylor:
“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. Then why not just say so, as Jefferson did?
Instead of trying to define fiscal years, outlays, expenditures, revenues, emergencies, triggers, sequestrations and on and on, I hope 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.”
Such an amendment, taking effect ten years from ratification, would give the government time to put its affairs in order and thereafter naturally require future Congresses to maintain both a balanced budget and a prudent reserve to accommodate fluctuations of revenues and routine contingencies.
It trusts that three-fourths of Congress will be able to recognize a genuine emergency when it sees one and that one-fourth of Congress will be strong enough to resist borrowing for trivial reasons. The states’ experience warns us that a 2/3 vote is insufficient to protect against profligacy.
Some advocate going much farther and establishing limitations on spending and taxation as well, but prohibiting borrowing sets a natural limit to the willingness of the people to tolerate taxation and therefore spending. The real danger is when run-away spending is accommodated by borrowing – a hidden future tax. The best and most effective way to invoke that natural limit is a simple prohibition.
In drafting an amendment to guide not only this generation, but all those to follow, I would hope that we would do as the Constitutional Convention would have done if it had the benefit of Jefferson’s wise counsel: set down the general principle only and allow future generations, with their own insight into their own challenges, to put it to practical effect.
# # #Read More
H.R. 26 - REINS Act
House Floor Remarks
January 5, 2017
I support the REINS act, but want to underscore the point raised by Mr. Barr.
The REINS Act says that any regulation – that is, an act with the force of law – that’s adopted by the executive branch and costs more than $100 million, must then be approved by Congress in order to take effect.
As necessary as this bill is in the current environment, I’m afraid we have it backwards. Under the Constitution just read on this floor again today, it is not the role of the executive branch to make laws and for the legislative branch to approve or veto them.
Quite the contrary, making law is the singular prerogative of the legislative branch – the executive then approves or vetoes that law.
The REINS act is necessary solely because for years Congress has improperly ceded its law-making powers to the executive. The REINS act is a manifestation of how far out of synch we have gotten with the Constitution.
It is time we restored the proper role of the legislative branch to make law and for the executive branch to faithfully execute it.
# # #Read More
The Honorable Tom McClintock (R-CA)
Committee on Natural Resources
H.J. Res. 3, Desert Storm Memorial location
January 4, 2017
House Joint Resolution 3 by Congressman Roe of Tennessee authorizes the National Desert Storm War Memorial Association to consider sites, along or near the National Mall, for a memorial to honor the members of the Armed Forces who served on active duty in support of Operation Desert Storm or Operation Desert Shield.
Under the Commemorative Works Act, any memorial proposed to be located on federal land along or near the National Mall, must be approved by Congress after the Secretary of the Interior determines that the proposed work is “of preeminent historical and lasting significance to the United States.” The Secretary of the Interior has recommended that the Desert Storm War Memorial Association be authorized to consider sites in Area I for the memorial, and this resolution would provide Congress’ approval of the Secretary’s recommendation. Congress provided initial authorization for the Desert Storm and Desert Shield Memorial in 2014 and the memorial is to be funded solely by private donations.
History will no doubt debate the political decisions that stopped our forces before they reached Baghdad. But it has already recorded and judged the effectiveness, the heroism, the courage and the devotion of our Armed Forces, who utterly vanquished the largest Army in the Middle East in just 100 hours, and who liberated the people of Kuwait from a hideous and sadistic military occupation.
This memorial will do more than honor the 382 Americans who gave their lives in the Gulf War and ensure that they will not be forgotten. After all, as Lincoln said at Gettysburg, the honor they earned on the battlefield cannot be added to or detracted by us, and long after our words are forgotten, their deeds will still be remembered and celebrated. But this monument will also remind future generations at home and abroad – friend and foe – of what the American Armed Forces can do to rescue and protect the weak – and vanquish and punish the guilty – when competently commanded in the field and backed by the full resolve of the American people in a righteous cause.Read More
Continuing Resolution to Fund the Government: Yes. Hopefully, this is the last continuing resolution that we will see. Like those before it, it spends too much, abandons Congress’ fundamental responsibility to superintend the nation’s finances, and circumvents the normal budget process. But it also gets us out of the debt, doubt and despair of the Obama administration into the prosperity, hope and promise of the Trump era. It will give our new President enough time to change the spending priorities that will fund the remainder of the fiscal year and set our course toward solvency and prosperity in the years ahead. This alone gets it past my gag reflex.
WRDA Conference Report: Water for California; Fire Protection for Tahoe
December 7, 2016
The conference report on the Water Resources Development Act is the product of many, many hours of good-faith negotiations between the House and Senate and between Republicans and Democrats. Like any compromise, I don’t like everything in it; but the net effect is an important step forward in protecting against the devastation of future droughts in California and catastrophic wildfire that threatens Lake Tahoe.
It provides for $335 million for desperately needed surface water storage. It opens a new era of hatcheries to provide for burgeoning populations of endangered fish species. It adds flexibility to management of New Melones Reservoir and water transfers to assure water can be more efficiently moved to where it is most needed. It adds strong protection to Northern California area of origin water rights. It expedites review and approval of new projects. It updates flood control management criteria to make better use of our existing reservoirs.
I particularly want to highlight the provisions related to Lake Tahoe. For many years, we’ve spent enormous resources to adjust drainage in the basin to improve water clarity at the lake. The Senate version of the measure introduced this session by Senators Heller and Feinstein continued this effort.
But the Heller-Feinstein bill neglected the most immediate environmental threat to Lake Tahoe, and that is catastrophic wildfire. The Senate bill had no provision for forest management specifically for fire prevention.
The number of acres burned by wildfire in the Lake Tahoe Basin has increased each decade since 1973, including a ten-fold increase over the past decade. Eighty percent of the Tahoe Basin forests are now densely and dangerously overgrown. They are dying. At lower elevations, there are now four times as many trees as the land can support. Modeling by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit warns that in two thirds of the forest, conditions now exist for flame size and intensity that are literally explosive. If a super-fire of the size we’ve seen in other parts of the Sierra were to strike the Tahoe Basin, it could decimate this lake and its surroundings for a generation to come.
For this reason, Congressman Amodei and I introduced a bill aimed strictly at fire prevention. This measure is specifically designed – after extensive input from fire districts throughout the Tahoe region – to reduce excess fuel before it burns.
It provides for expediting collaborative fuel reduction projects consistent with the Lake Tahoe Land and Resource Management Plan and it calls for funds generated by timber sales and other fee-based revenues to stay in the Tahoe Basin to provide for further fuels management and other improvements.
This was falsely portrayed by left-wing activists in the region as a substitute for the Senate bill. As Congressman Amodei and I repeatedly made clear, it was designed to supplement that bill and to fill a very glaring deficiency that ignored the single greatest environmental hazard to the lake.
I am very pleased to note that the critical provisions of both bills – for lake clarity and fire prevention – are now in the conference report, thanks to the bipartisan negotiations between House and Senate negotiators, most notably by Senator Feinstein and House Majority Leader McCarthy.
Unfortunately, in the last 48 hours, Senator Boxer has threatened to blindside this effort and destroy the fruit of these years of labor and endless hours of negotiation. She has threatened to assemble enough votes – not to put forward a positive and credible plan of her own to address these critical needs – but rather to ruin the painstaking negotiations of many others just as they are coming to fruition.
In the last four years, the King Fire, the Butte Fire, the Rough Fire and the Rim Fire have destroyed more than a thousand square miles of forests in the Sierra. If we don’t restore forest management in the Tahoe Basin NOW, the next fire could reduce its magnificent forests to cinders, and clog the lake with ash and debris for decades to come.
We can only pray that wiser heads prevail in the Senate and that this conference report is speedily adopted by both houses and signed by the President.
# # #Read More
On the Impeachment of John Koskinen as IRS Commissioner:
On the motion to lay on the table: NO.
On the motion to refer to committee: YES.
On December 6, Congressman Jim Jordan moved to impeach John Koskinen as IRS commissioner for actions related to the IRS harassment of taxpayer groups based on their political beliefs. Although Koskinen did not order the harassment, there is considerable evidence that he willfully obstructed a lawful Congressional investigation of the matter and that he lied to Congress. If proven, either of these actions constitutes an impeachable offense. Nancy Pelosi moved to lay the motion on the table, which in House practice is the same as defeating it. Because I believe the motion to impeach Koskinen is a legitimate exercise of Congress’ constitutional authority, I voted against this motion.
However, the power of impeachment is one of the most serious checks on an abusive executive branch that Congress possesses, and it must be exercised judiciously and with full respect to due process. Once an impeachment resolution is introduced, the Judiciary Committee must then begin a full investigation, the accused accorded the right to answer the charges, and the evidence obtained from this investigation must then guide the Congress in its deliberations. Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte moved to refer the motion to his committee to begin this constitutional process. I voted to do so.
It is unfortunate that this impeachment motion was made in the closing hours of the session, with no time for serious and sober consideration in the House or trial by the Senate. I believe this tactic made a mockery of this vital constitutional function and trivialized the very serious charges against Koskinen. This resolution should have been introduced many months ago, so that a credible impeachment process could proceed. It was not.
The new Congress convenes on January 3rd. Koskinen’s term as IRS commissioner does not expire until November of 2017. If the authors of this resolution were serious about proceeding – and they should be – the time to introduce an impeachment resolution would be in less than a month, when a credible, factual and compelling impeachment could be undertaken.
# # #Read More
H.R. 4680 – National Park Service Centennial Act
House Chambers, Washington, D.C.
December 6, 2016
This year marked the centennial anniversary of the National Park Service and of the uniquely American notion that our most beautiful and historic lands should be set aside for the use, resort and recreation of the American people as set forth in the original Yosemite Grant Act. Or, in the words of the Organic Act of 1916 that established the National Parks, “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same.”
Yet, a century into this endeavor, the Park Service faces considerable challenges to achieving these objectives. The Park Service’s original charge was to manage just 35 national parks and monuments. Today, it is responsible for over 400 units across 84 million acres. This exponential growth has left many locations in disrepair, facing a growing backlog of deferred maintenance, now exceeding $12 billion.
In addition to desperately needed maintenance, the Park Service also faces challenges with fee collection, technological upgrades, management of concessions contracts for visitor services, and most disturbingly, a substantial decrease in over-night visitation. The decline has been particularly high among young people. Recent reports indicate that visits to parks by those 15 years of age and younger has fallen by half in the last decade.
The National Park Service Centennial Act provides the Park Service with new tools and authorities it can use to maintain and improve the system. Provisions in this bill help reduce the Service’s deferred maintenance backlog by generating new revenue to pay for needed capital improvements and leveraging private philanthropic donations to amplify this effort. In turn, these funds will be used to enhance visitor services, provide wi-fi and cellular access that young people demand and expand the Volunteers in Parks and Public Lands Corps programs that are so important in welcoming the public to the public lands.
I believe the three greatest challenges to federal lands management are to restore public access to the public lands, to restore sound management to the public lands, and to restore the federal government as a good neighbor to those communities directly affected by the public lands.
This bill does all three. It promotes public access and enjoyment of the parks by promoting the expansion, modernization and improvement of visitor services and amenities. It promotes good management by placing priority and generating funds to address the growing maintenance backlog. And it repairs the relationship between the federal and local governments by giving local officials a say in future historic designations.
I can’t think of a better way to celebrate the last century and begin the next century of our National Park Service than to restore the vision of its founders.Read More
Paying for Infrastructure Without Soaking the Taxpayer
Congressman Tom McClintock
House Chambers, Washington, D.C.
December 1, 2016
President-elect Trump has many difficult fiscal tasks ahead – one of which is to promote long-overdue infrastructure construction at a time when the national debt exceeds our entire economy and interest costs alone are eating us alive.
Some have said that a rebounding economy resulting from tax reform will pay for it. That may be, but it’s not guaranteed; it cannot be accurately forecast; and we’ll need any new revenues to beef up our defenses and reduce our deficit – two other critical objectives of the new administration.
Others have proposed tax credits to leverage private capital for infrastructure improvements. But tax credits reduce revenue and widen the deficit. Worse, such public-private partnerships have also proven a fertile breeding ground for corruption, crony-capitalism, waste and fraud.
And as we learned during the Obama stimulus fiasco, massive government spending might stimulate government, but it does little to stimulate the economy when it is squandered for boondoggles like subsidizing Solyndra and paying cash for clunkers.
So how do we avoid the mistakes of the past, control the deficit, protect taxpayers and yet add a trillion dollars of new infrastructure in a way that helps the economy and not merely lines the pockets of politically well-connected interests?
FIRST: Get government out of the way! Stop obstructing major infrastructure projects like the Keystone Pipeline. Keystone and many other projects like it across the country already have private capital ready to finance them. Keystone by itself would unleash an estimated $8 billion of privately financed infrastructure construction and would deliver a half million barrels a day of Canadian crude oil entering U.S. markets.
In my district alone, one abusive official at the Sacramento office of the Army Corps of Engineers single-handedly blocked tens of millions of dollars of critical infrastructure construction desperately sought by local governments in the region. Multiply that across the country, and you can see how much infrastructure is ALREADY financed but cannot move forward because of federal obstructionism.
SECOND: Streamline radical regulations that have made many infrastructure projects cost-prohibitive.
In my district, the little town of Foresthill gets its water from the Sugar Pine Reservoir, formed by a dam that has an 18-foot spillway, but no spillway gate. The town is trying to increase the reservoir’s capacity by adding the missing gate. The gate will cost $2 million. But environmental studies, environmental mitigation and U.S. Forest Service Fees have inflated that cost to at least $11 million – so this project has stalled. Multi-billion dollar expansion of Shasta Dam is stalled for the same reason. Once again, multiply this across the rest of the country.
THIRD: Use revenue bonds to finance capital-intensive projects like dams and bridges. California built its iconic Golden Gate and Bay Bridges with loans from private investors – repaid by tolls charged only to the users of the bridges. The taxpayers were never on the hook for a dime, and the loans were paid back ahead of schedule.
The famous California Water Project constructed 21 dams and more than 700 miles of canals. The revenue bonds and self-liquidating general obligation bonds that financed it were paid back not by general taxpayers, but by the users of the water and power.
FOURTH: Restore the integrity of our highway trust fund. We built the modern Interstate system with the federal excise tax paid only by highway users at the gas pump. The more you drove, the more you paid for the roads you were using. But over the decades, more and more of these funds were bled away to subsidize mass transit and other purposes unrelated to highway construction. Restoring highway taxes for highways would go a long way toward addressing the maintenance and construction backlog.
FIFTH: Repeal the outdated Davis-Bacon Act that requires federal projects to pay grossly inflated wages. Think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute estimate that Davis-Bacon alone inflates total construction costs by roughly 10 percent. Just repealing this act alone would add one new project for every ten existing ones at no additional cost.
These are just a few ways that massive infrastructure projects can be financed at zero cost to general taxpayers. And because these reforms are actually directed at projects for which there is a demonstrated economic need, political favoritism and corruption inherent in government-directed programs can be greatly reduced.
Mr. Speaker, freedom works. And it is time we put it – and America – back to work.
H.R. 6 – 21st Century Cures ACT: YES. This bill expedites FDA approvals for new medical drugs and devices and authorizes spending on major research into cancer and Alzheimer’s. I voted against the original bill because it established multiple new mandatory spending programs outside of Congress’ annual appropriations review and depended primarily on budget gimmicks to pay for them. This version replaces the mandatory spending aspects of the bill with discretionary spending that Congress must review and approve ever year, and greatly reduces the pay-for gimmicks. It also incorporates HR 2646, a sweeping mental health bill that is critical to public safety. It is not a perfect bill, but does far more good than harm.
434 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Congressman Tom McClintock was elected in November 2008 to represent the 4th Congressional District in the United States Congress.
During 22 years in the California State Legislature, and as a candidate for governor in California’s historic recall election, Tom McClintock has become one of the most recognizable political leaders in California.
First elected to the California Assembly at the age of 26, McClintock quickly distinguished himself as an expert in parliamentary procedure and fiscal policy. He served in the Assembly from 1982 to 1992 and again from 1996 to 2000. During these years, he authored California’s current lethal injection death penalty law, spearheaded the campaign to rebate $1.1 billion in tax over-collections to the people of California, and became the driving force in the legislature to abolish the car tax. He has proposed hundreds of specific reforms to streamline state government and reduce state spending.
In 2000, McClintock was elected to the California State Senate, where he developed innovative budget solutions such as the Bureaucracy Reduction and Closure Commission and performance-based budgeting, and advocated for restoring California’s public works.
From 1992-1994, McClintock served as Director of the Center for the California Taxpayer, a project of the National Tax Limitation Foundation. In 1995, he was named Director of Economic and Regulatory Affairs for the Claremont Institute’s Golden State Center for Policy Studies, a position he held until his return to the Assembly in 1996. In that capacity, he wrote and lectured extensively on state fiscal policy, privatization, bureaucratic reform and governmental streamlining.
McClintock’s commentaries on California public policy have appeared in every major newspaper in California and he is a frequent guest on radio and television broadcasts across the nation. Numerous taxpayer associations have honored him for his leadership on state budget issues.
McClintock has twice received the Republican nomination for the office of State Controller, narrowly missing election in 2002 by the closest margin in California history – 23/100ths of one percent of the votes cast.
McClintock is the Chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee, and is a member of the Budget Committee and the Natural Resources Committee. He is also a member of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands.
Tom McClintock and his wife, Lori, have two children, Justin and Shannah.