Tom McClintock

Tom McClintock


House Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2018


House Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2018
House of Representatives
October 4, 2017
Mr. Speaker:
For the first time in many years, this budget uses the reconciliation process for the purpose it was intended: to bring mandatory spending under control.
The appropriations that dominate so much of the debate comprise less than one third of current federal spending.  That one third is called discretionary spending.  The budget sets a level and the appropriations process spends to that level.  That’s everything from general government to defense.  We’ve actually reduced that spending compared to 2010.
The other two-thirds of spending is called “mandatory spending.” It is beyond the annual control of Congress. It continues automatically until and unless the statutes that call for it are actually changed.  And it’s mandatory spending that is eating our country alive.
Mandatory spending is supposed to be controlled by reconciliation.  Instructions are sent to the various authorizing committees to make whatever changes are necessary in current law to stay within mandatory spending limits.  
But this powerful fiscal tool has been ignored or squandered in past budgets, and this neglect is undermining the solvency of our country.
For the first time in many years, the House budget actually restrains mandatory spending, by instructing committees to find at least $200 billion in savings over the next decade.  
This budget will get us back to balance within the decade -- and here’s why that’s important.
If the Democrats have their way and we maintain our current path, the CBO warns that just four fiscal years from now – in 2022 – our annual deficits will surpass a trillion dollars.  That’s where economists warn we run the risk of damage or even loss of our access to credit – a sovereign debt crisis.  Venezuela is having that now – and even within our own territory, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.  Pension systems implode, basic services falter and the economy collapses.  
Two years after that – in 2024 – the CBO warns that the annual interest cost on our debt will reach $654 billion.  That’s more than we currently spend on defense.  
At the same time, we charge the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, sending trillions of dollars of capital and hundreds of thousands of jobs to other countries.  In the last eight years, we’ve averaged only half our post-war economic growth.  
I would remind our friends on the left that corporations don’t pay corporate taxes.  There are only three possible ways to pay a corporate tax.  It is paid by consumers through higher prices.  It is paid by employees through lower wages.  And it is paid by investors through lower earnings.  
Cutting corporate taxes means lowering prices on consumers, increasing wages for employees and increasing earnings on pension plans.
Tax relief is absolutely vital to reviving the economy, but experience warns us that revenue growth only partially offsets revenue lost to tax reductions.  
The ranking member says this is a choice between taxes and debt.  Wrong. taxes and debt are two sides of the same coin.  Taxes and debt are the only two possible ways to pay for spending.  Once we’ve spent a dollar, we’ve already decided to tax it.  We either tax it now or we borrow it now and tax it later.  Either way, it is entirely driven by spending.   
By restraining spending, this budget makes possible the tax relief our economy desperately needs to grow.  
Frankly, we could do much more if we could summon the political will to do so.  I will present such a budget tomorrow on behalf of the Republican Study Committee.  
But this budget moves us a long way in the right direction.  It sets in motion the policies that presidents from Calvin Coolidge to John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan have all used to revive and expand our economy.  It brings us closer to that day when families will awaken to a new and prosperous morning for America. 
Read More

“We Are Running Out of Forests to Save”


“We Are Running Out of Forests to Save”
October 3, 2017
Mr. Speaker:
I want to thank Chairman Gosar of the Western Caucus for arranging this special order tonight.  The wildfire crisis facing our forests across the West comes down to a simple adage.  Excess timber comes out of the forest one way or the other.  It is either carried out, or it burns out.  But it comes out.
When we carried out our excess timber, we had healthy, resilient forests and we had thriving prosperous communities.  Excess timber sales from federal lands not only generated revenues 
for our mountain communities, but created thousands of jobs.  But in the 1970’s, we adopted laws like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act that have resulted in endlessly time consuming and cost-prohibitive restrictions and requirements that have made the scientific management of our forests virtually impossible.  Timber sales from the federal lands have dropped 80 percent in the intervening years, with a concomitant increase in forest fires.  In California alone, the number of saw mills has dropped from 149 in 1981 to just 27 today.  
Timber that once had room to grow healthy and strong now fights for its life against other trees trying to occupy the same ground.  Average tree density in the Sierra Nevada is three to four times the density the land can support.  In this weakened condition, trees lose their natural defenses to drought, disease, pestilence, and ultimately succumb to catastrophic wildfire.

Three years ago, an estimated 25 million trees in the Sierra fell victim to these stressors.  Two years ago, that number doubled to over 50 million trees.  Last year, an estimated 100 million dead trees are waiting to burn.  
After 45 years of experience with these environmental laws – all passed with the promise they would improve the forest environment – I think we are entitled to ask, “How is the forest environment doing?”  All around us, the answer is damning.  These laws have not only failed to improve our forest environment – they are literally killing our forests.
The same politicians responsible for these failed laws have recently conjured up two excuses.  One is climate change.  The other is that we are putting out too many fires.
Putting out too many fires?  That invites an important question.  Which fires do they propose we let burn?   The King Fire that almost wiped out the towns of Georgetown and Foresthill on its way to Lake Tahoe in 2014?  Or perhaps the Detwiler fire this year that almost wiped out the town of Mariposa on its way to Yosemite Valley?  Or any one of the more than 1,000 small fires in the Sierra that Calfire has put out this year – any one of which could have grown into a mega-fire but for the vigilance and competence of our fire agencies.
True, controlled burns play an important role in clearing out underbrush – but as firefighters bitterly complained to me at the command center at the Detwiler fire, these same laws make it virtually impossible to get permits to do the controlled burns.
The other reason we hear is that old dependable, climate change. Let’s put that to the smell test. 
Throughout our vast forests, it is often very easy to visually identify the property lines between well managed private forests and the neglected federal lands – I’ve seen it myself on aerial inspections.  The managed forests are green, healthy and thriving.  The neglected federal forests are densely overcrowded and often scarred by fire because we can’t even salvage the fire-killed timber while it still has value.  How clever of the climate to know exactly what is the boundary between private and government lands!
And if carbon dioxide is the problem, doesn’t it make sense to mill fully grown trees to sequester the carbon and replace them with young, growing trees that absorb much higher amounts of carbon?  Again, the same laws prevent this.
This is not complicated.  Our forests are catastrophically overgrown.  Drought is a catalyst – it is not a cause.  In overgrown forests, much snow evaporates in dense canopies and cannot reach the ground.  The transpiration volume in an overgrown forest is a problem in normal years – in a drought it becomes lethal.   
Pestilence is a catalyst – it is not a cause.  Healthy trees can naturally resist bark beetles – stressed trees can’t.  A properly managed forest matches the tree density to the ability of the land to support it.   But we cannot properly manage our forests because of the laws now in place.
Mr. Westerman’s Resilient Federal Forests Act and other measures will restore proper scientific management of our national forests.  But we are running out of time to enact them because we are running out of forests to save.
Read More

Floor Statement - Committee on Natural Resources - H.R. 289 Guides and Outfitters (GO) Act


Floor Statement 
The Honorable Tom McClintock (R-CA)
Committee on Natural Resources
H.R. 289, Guides and Outfitters Act
October 2, 2017
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 289, the Guides and Outfitters -- or GO Act -- offered by my Natural Resources Committee colleague and California neighbor, Congressman Doug LaMalfa. 
For many years, we have seen increasingly severe restrictions on the public’s use of the public land.  One of the most galling aspects of this exclusionary policy is the use of exorbitant fees to prevent many group events and small business services that are often the economic mainstay of small mountain communities like those in my district in the Sierra Nevada.  
This abusive practice was made possible by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act in 2004.
It unleashed a flood of complex rules, regulations, and court decisions that have gradually increased the cost of permit administration for the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, which these agencies, in turn, have used to raise fees on the public to cost-prohibitive levels.
For example, the California Endurance Riders Association had been using the El Dorado National Forest for many years. In 2009, when they sought a simple 5-year 10-event permit to continue doing exactly what they have been doing without incident for decades, the Forest Service demanded $11,000 in fees.  
They paid these fees, but the El Dorado National Forest management nevertheless pulled the approved permit and halted the process on utterly specious grounds.  It then demanded an additional $17,000 fee, causing the Endurance Riders Association to cancel what had been a long-term civic tradition that had been a boon to the local economy.  
In 2010 this outrage was repeated after the group spent $5,800 for the “Fool’s Gold Endurance Run” that had been an ongoing event for more than 40 years.
Hardest hit are guides and outfitters – the folks who make it possible for visitors to fully enjoy our national lands.  They’re the small businesses that provide specialized knowledge, skills and equipment that new visitors just don’t possess. 
Both the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have used FLREA to require these small businesses to pay for permit processing and environmental analyses that require more than 50 hours. These fees, along with complex planning requirements, have virtually shut down so many legitimate and traditional public events and uses.
Efforts to encourage the agencies to modify and streamline the process have failed, even when those efforts were supported by agency policy.
The GO Act is a long-overdue relief of these practices.  
It amends FLREA to streamline the recreation permitting process and allow for increased public access to recreation opportunities on federal lands.   
The GO Act was crafted in consultation with a wide-variety of recreation groups throughout the country and aims to reduce the cost and complexity of these permits.  
I commend Representative LaMalfa for listening to his constituents and to thousands of recreation service providers throughout the country who are begging Congress to make these changes. 
I urge adoption of the measure and yield back. 
Read More

Federal Lands Subcommittee Legislative Hearing on H.R. 3668, the “Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2017” (“Share Act”)


Congressman McClintock is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.  The subcommittee held a legislative hearing on September 12, 2017.  Congressman McClintock delivered the following opening statement:

Opening Statement of Chairman Tom McClintock (CA-04)
House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Federal Lands

September 12, 2017

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 3668, the “Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2017” (“Share Act”)

Today, the Subcommittee on Federal Lands meets to discuss HR 3668, the “Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2017” or “Share Act.”  The Share Act combines provisions from previous legislation passed by the House in the 112th, 113th and 114th congresses.  Its purpose is to increase opportunities for hunters, recreational shooters, and anglers; eliminate regulatory impediments; safeguard against new regulations that impede outdoor sporting activities; and protect Second Amendment rights. 

Outdoor sporting activities, including hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting, are deeply engrained in the fabric of America’s culture and heritage. Values of personal responsibility, resource management, conservation and outdoor recreation instilled by these activities are passed down from generation to generation and play a significant role in the lives of millions of Americans. Hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting are growing in popularity.  In 2011, over 37 million people over the age of 16 hunted or fished across the country.  And every year sportsmen and women contribute around $90 billion to the U.S. economy.  

Much of America’s outdoor sporting activity occurs on our public lands; lands that we have set aside for the express purpose of “public use, resort and recreation,” in the words of the original Yosemite charter.  Sadly, over the last several decades, federal agencies like the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have sought to prevent or impede access to public lands for these traditional outdoor sporting purposes. 
One of the most commonly cited reasons by Americans who have given up on these recreational pursuits on public lands is ease of access.  People don’t go where they’re not wanted, not allowed, or legally jeopardized by a tangle of intricate rules and jurisdictions.

Congress represents the people and under our Constitution is given exclusive jurisdiction over the people’s lands.  Yet these policies – so antithetical to the purpose of our public lands – have been made not by Congress, but by bureaucrats who seek to replace the doctrine of “use, resort and recreation” with an elitist and restrictive policy of “look, but don’t touch.”

The Federal Lands Sub-committee of the House has for the last six years sought to restore public access to public lands, and the SHARE Act is a very important part of that policy.

One of the key provisions of this bill, the “Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage Opportunities Act”, begins to rein in these bureaucratic abuses, by declaring our public lands open to hunting and fishing unless the agency has specific reasons to exclude these activities from individual tracts of land.  

It takes care not to prioritize hunting and fishing over other traditional public uses of public land but rather to maintain them within the multitude of outdoor recreational pursuits the public enjoys.  It also respects the cooperative relationship we have sought with local communities affected by federal ownership.  For example, another provision in the bill will improve inter-governmental coordination to create and maintain recreational shooting ranges on public lands and respect agreements with tribal jurisdictions. 

The bill also protects Second Amendment rights and the use of traditional ammunition and fishing tackle.  It defends law-abiding citizens’ constitutional right to carry arms on lands owned by the Army Corps of Engineers. It assures that firearms can be carried across state lines under uniform rules without fear of legal jeopardy.  It also removes ATF's authority to use the "sporting purposes" clauses in federal law in ways that could undermine the core purpose of the Second Amendment. The bill also ensures that hunters are not burdened by outdated laws preventing bows and crossbows from being transported across National Parks.

The bill also removes fire suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act, replacing the federal transfer process with a National Instant Criminal Background Check. Suppressors are important devices to reduce hearing damage for shooters – my father suffered from it -- as well as to reduce noise at shooting ranges located near residential areas.   In my district, this has been a major complaint of residents near a recently-opened outdoor shooting range in Shingle Springs.

The early kings of England declared a third of the public lands off limits to commoners and made them the exclusive preserves of the elites of the royal court.  The English people resented this so greatly that they devoted no fewer than five clauses of the Magna Carta for redress. Our forbearers created the American public lands on precisely the opposite premise: that EVERY American has the right to enjoy these lands in all the traditional pursuits – and hunting and fishing are indisputably the oldest of them.  Yes, they are absolutely essential to manage wildlife populations.  Yes, they contribute greatly to our economy.  Yes, they instill critical moral values.  But the most important reason is that they are the birthright of every American, confirmed by the original charters that established our public lands.  

It is our responsibility to preserve and protect that right and this bill takes us a long way to restoring it.


Read More

H.R. 601 – Three-month Debt Limit Suspension, $230 billion of general spending and $8 billion for Emergency Hurricane Relief


Vote Note on H.R. 601

H.R. 601 – Three-month Debt Limit Suspension, $230 billion of general spending and $8 billion for Emergency Hurricane Relief.

I supported the clean disaster relief bill for Hurricane Harvey.  But I cannot and will not support the cynical use of disasters as an excuse to pack relief bills with extraneous and questionable policies that ought to be considered on their own.  This bill left the House with my support to provide $7.9 billion of emergency funding for Hurricane Harvey.  Period.  It returns from the Senate with a three-month suspension of the debt limit, an additional $230 billion of general government spending unrelated to hurricane relief and $7.4 billion of added spending for Community Development Block Grants (that have notoriously little accountability).  

Read More

The Senate's Choice


September 7, 2017

Two weeks after the 2016 election, I spoke on the House floor and warned that the greatest single obstacle to meeting the expectations of the American people was the cloture rule in the Senate.  I said: “Voters elected Republican majorities in both houses of Congress and they expect action.  They’ll get it from the President and from the House.  But in order for the Senate to rise to this occasion, it must reform its cloture rule when it organizes in January.”  It didn’t.

Cloture is the Senate motion to conclude debate, and it is based on a sound parliamentary principle: as long as a significant minority – currently 40 Senate members – want to continue debate, that debate should continue.  But this principle assumes it is an actual debate between real people regarding the merits of the subject directly at hand.

But that is not what cloture has become.  Today, any Senator can block virtually any bill simply by filing a protest at the desk, and until 60 of the 100 Senators agree to take up the bill, it cannot be heard.  

Ironically, a motion originally designed to protect debate has degenerated into a motion that very effectively prevents debate.

It also hands practical control of the Senate to the Democratic minority, which can effectively veto any proposal by the majority, essentially reversing the result of the election.

This is not some act of God or constitutional constraint that has been forced upon the Senate.  No, this is a deliberate choice by Senate Republicans NOT to reform their cloture rule.  It has rendered the Senate dysfunctional, and with it, the Congress. 

Earlier this year, the Senate briefly recognized this and chose to reform cloture for Supreme Court nominations -- but not for legislation absolutely vital to the interests of our country.

The news yesterday that the President has capitulated to Democratic demands on the debt limit should come as no surprise.  This became inevitable when Senate Republicans turned over control of the Senate to Chuck Schumer by failing to reform cloture.  

That is how we got wrapped around the axle on repealing and replacing Obamacare.  The House could have passed a comprehensive bill that completely and cleanly abolished Obamacare and fully replaced it with all the market and tax reforms that Republicans agreed with and campaigned on – popular reforms that put consumers back in charge of their health care decisions and placed those decisions within their financial reach. 

Instead, the House leadership chose to attempt this through a budget process called reconciliation – a process completely unsuited for complex policy reform.  They did so for one reason: to bypass the Senate cloture rule.  By adhering to the very limited and restricted requirements of budget reconciliation, the House produced a mangled, tangled mess that fell well short of the reforms we had promised and ultimately failed to receive even a simple majority of the Senate.

Those who supported this process argued that a clean, complete, comprehensive bill would have been dead on arrival in the Senate for lack of Democratic votes for cloture.

I doubt that.  Quite the contrary, had the House done its job through regular order – rather than try to cover for the Senate Republicans’ bad choice – one of two things would have happened.

As Obamacare continued to implode, Senate Democrats would have been seen as the single obstacle to a popular, comprehensive reform.  It’s entirely possible that eight of the most vulnerable Democrats would ultimately have crossed party lines and supported this rescue of our health care system.

Or, far more likely, Senate Republicans would have been forced to come to the same conclusion that they came to with respect to the Supreme Court nomination of Neil Gorsuch and reform this rule.  

Certainly, we couldn’t have been worse off than we are today.

I ask that henceforth, the House leadership stop covering for the Senate Republicans, and move all the legislation we promised the American people to the Senate through regular order.  It is time we left the management of the Senate to the Senate, stopped enabling their atrocious judgment on not reforming cloture and made very clear to the American public why the reforms they entrusted us to enact aren’t being sent to the President.  

Senator Dirksen once noted, “When they feel the heat, they see the light.”  It’s time the House – and the American people – adopted this maxim.

Read More

Amendment to H.R. 3354 - Essential Air Service


Amendment to H.R. 3354
Essential Air Service
September 6, 2017

Mr. Chairman:

This amendment eliminates the $150 million of discretionary spending wasted on one of the least essential programs in the entire United States Government, the so-called “Essential Air Service.”  That is the program that subsidizes empty and near-empty planes to fly from small airports to regional hubs just a few hours away or less by car.

This was supposed to be a temporary program to allow local communities and airports to re-adjust to airline de-regulation in 1978.  Last year, the Essential Air Service cost a total of $298 million between direct taxpayer subsidies and fees to fly near-empty airplanes to underused airports.  $150 million of that is in our control and this amendment zeroes it out and puts it toward deficit reduction.

Actual subsidies per passenger can be over $1,000 per seat.  

Year after year, we’re promised reform, and year after year the cost goes up.

Essential Air Service flights are flown out of Merced airport, near my district in the Sierra Nevada of California.  Yet Merced is less than an hour’s drive from Fresno Airport, that offers scheduled commercial air service.  A tiny number of people in my district may use this service, but EVERY person in my district who hears about this waste of their money is outraged by it. 

Apologists for this wasteful spending tell us it is an important economic driver for these small airports – and I’m sure that’s so – whenever you give away money, the folks you’re giving it to are always better off.  But the folks you’re taking it from are always worse off to exactly the same extent.  Indeed, this has become a very lucrative business for charter companies to employ otherwise idle aircraft at taxpayer expense.

I want to emphasize that this program has nothing to do with emergency medical evacuations.  It solely subsidizes regular, scheduled, commercial service that practically nobody uses.  

If it actually had a passenger base, we wouldn’t need, in effect, to hand out wads of hundred dollar bills to the few passengers who use it. 

An airline so reckless with its funds would quickly bankrupt itself.  The same principle holds true for governments.

The Washington Post is not known as a bastion of fiscal conservatism, but I cannot improve upon an editorial a few years ago when it said,  

“Ideally, EAS would be zeroed out, and the $200 million we waste on it devoted to a truly national purpose: perhaps deficit reduction, military readiness or the social safety net.  Alas, if Congress and the White House were capable of making such choices, we probably never would have had sequestration in the first place.”

There are many tough calls in setting fiscal priorities, but this isn’t one of them.  If the House of Representatives -- where all appropriations begin – with a Republican majority pledged to stop wasting money -- can’t even agree to cut this useless program off from the trough, how does it expect to be taken seriously on the much tougher choices that lie ahead?

Indeed, this is the kindest cut of all – eliminating a temporary program established 39 years ago and that has become a poster-child for wasteful federal spending.

Our national debt has roughly doubled in eight years.  American taxpayers will pay roughly $269 billion this year just in interest costs on that debt.  If you’re an average family paying average taxes, it means about $2,200 of your taxes this year will do nothing more than RENT the money we have already spent.

Continuing to pay for this obsolete and wasteful program with money we don’t have is obscene.  It makes a mockery of any claim that we have cut spending to the bone.


Read More

Statement on President's DACA Announcement


Statement on President's DACA Announcement
      DACA was an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative authority by President Obama and President Trump is right to end it, while giving Congress the time it will need to develop law to transition out of it.  I have long maintained that until our borders are secured, discussions over legalizing the residency of illegal immigrants brought to this country as children were premature and would encourage more illegal crossings.  Now that the administration is making progress on restoring border security, it is time for Congress to address this issue.  Reform should incorporate two fundamental policies:
      First, the reform must include measures to restore complete integrity to our legal immigration system.  This includes full funding for construction of the border wall, mandatory use of e-verify for employment with strengthened penalties to employers who violate federal employment law, strengthening penalties for those illegally entering or staying in the country, strong sanctions against local and state sanctuary jurisdictions and implementation of entry/exit monitoring of visa stays.
      Second, DACA must not be made a permanent and open-ended policy, or we will encourage more parents to illegally bring their children to the United States.   DACA should be ended immediately.  Those currently enrolled in the program should be granted legal residency if they have no criminal convictions in their background, if they are not affiliated with criminal gangs and if they have not previously been subject to a deportation order.  DACA residents who wish subsequently to apply for citizenship should not displace the applications of legal immigrants.  
Read More

Forest Fire Prevention


Click for Forest Fire Prevention link

August 22, 2017 Speeches
First, I want to thank Senator Feinstein for restoring the bi-partisan nature of this annual Tahoe Summit. Lincoln once reminded us “that we can succeed only by concert.” We demonstrated that maxim with the enactment of the Tahoe provisions in the Water Infrastructure Improvements Act last December. That wouldn’t have been possible without Republicans and Democrats coming together in Washington.

Detwiler Fire

July 26, 2017 Speeches
Mr. Speaker: I want to begin by saluting the more than 5,000 firefighters from 40 cooperating agencies that assembled under the coordination of CALFIRE to battle the Detwiler fire that threatened Yosemite Valley and its gateway communities
June 21, 2017 Speeches

H.R. 1873 – Hazard Tree Removal


Chairman’s Opening Statement - Subcommittee on Federal Lands

June 15, 2017 Speeches

Congressman McClintock is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.  The subcommittee held a legislative hearing on June 15, 2017.  Congressman McClintock delivered the following opening statement:

Chairman’s Opening Statement
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
House Natural Resources Committee
June 15, 2017

May 17, 2017 Speeches

Congressman McClintock is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.  The subcommittee held a hearing on May 17, 2017.  Congressman McClintock delivered the following opening statement:

Hearing on Wildfire Prevention
Federal Lands Subcommittee
House Natural Resources Committee

WRDA - A Critical Moment for Tahoe and the West

December 7, 2016 Speeches
WRDA Conference Report: Water for California; Fire Protection for Tahoe. 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.
May 12, 2016 Speeches
And here’s a song we’ve heard before: despite the high fire risk, BLM is not performing adequate fire prevention activities, particularly mechanical treatments, in the area because it is managed as a WSA. In addition, the location of the WSA hampers firefighting tactics, leaving local firefighters with no maneuvering room to protect life and property in the event of catastrophic wildfire.
February 22, 2016 Press Release

The attached letter to the editor from Congressman McClintock has been submitted to the Sacramento Bee:

Matt Weiser grossly misrepresents both Republican federal lands policy and my leadership of the House subcommittee that oversees it.

Our committee seeks to restore responsible stewardship of our national forests and protect the public’s right to enjoy the public’s lands.  

January 27, 2016 Speeches

February 22, 2016

The attached letter to the editor from Congressman McClintock has been submitted to the Sacramento Bee:

Matt Weiser grossly misrepresents both Republican federal lands policy and my leadership of the House subcommittee that oversees it.

Our committee seeks to restore responsible stewardship of our national forests and protect the public’s right to enjoy the public’s lands.  

October 8, 2015 Press Release

Rep. Tom McClintock’s (R-CA) and Rep. Mark Amodei’s (R-NV) H.R. 3382, the “Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2015” passed the House Natural Resources Committee today.  The legislation focuses resources on fire prevention and additional measures to protect the lake from the introduction of invasive species. 

August 24, 2015 Speeches
Tahoe rests on the northern boundary of California’s Fourth Congressional District. Meanwhile, right now – as we speak – a catastrophic wildfire is raging in the King’s Canyon region on the southern boundary of this very same district. That fire has already consumed 78 square miles of national forests and at latest report is only 17 percent contained.
July 30, 2015 Press Release

Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA) and Congressman Mark Amodei (R-NV) introduced legislation yesterday to address catastrophic wildfire and invasive species threats to Lake Tahoe and the Tahoe Basin.  The Federal Lands Subcommittee chaired by McClintock had already considered the preliminary draft of H.R. 3382, “Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2015,” on July 14th, putting it on a fast track for House passage.

July 9, 2015 Press Release

Congressman McClintock is a co-author of H.R. 2647 (Westerman), the Resilient Federal Forests Act. The legislation was approved by the House on July 9, 2015.  The bill next goes to the Senate. Congressman McClintock delivered the following House floor debate remarks in support of the measure:

Resilient Federal Forests Act
July 9, 2015

    Excess timber comes out of the forest one way or the other.  It is either carried out or it is burned out. 

    When we carried it out, we had healthy forests and a thriving economy.

May 14, 2015 Speeches

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands held an oversight hearing on the impact of litigation on forest management, the U.S. Forest Service’s response to the growing challenge of litigation and related impacts upon forest health. 

Supervisor Randy Hanvelt of Tuolumne County provided testimony at the hearing.  Supervisor Hanvelt’s district includes large sections of the Stanislaus National Forest, an area severely impacted by the 2013 Rim Fire.

April 23, 2015 Speeches
Over the past thirty years, we have seen an 80 percent reduction in timber harvested from our national forests, and in the same period a concomitant increase in acreage destroyed by fire. This phenomenon far predates the Western drought and was best summed up by a forester long ago who observed, “All that excess timber comes out of the forests one way or the other. It is either CARRIED OUT or it is BURNED OUT. But it comes OUT.”
Read More

New Citizens Ceremony


New Citizens Ceremony
Sacramento, California
August 23, 2017
I am honored to join you today on this auspicious occasion of your assumption of American citizenship.  
America is not just a nation.  America is also a notion – an idea – that is unique among the nations of the world.  There are many democracies and republics around the world today – but only one to my knowledge, founded on the uniquely American principles given voice in the American Declaration of Independence and given life in the American Constitution.  
In 1858, Abraham Lincoln observed that in the 82 years since the American founding, many could trace their roots back to that first generation, but many had arrived since then.  He said,
“If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.”
The Declaration proclaims the self-evident truth that we are all born with certain rights that come to us not from government, but from the laws of nature and of nature’s God.  We know instinctively what these rights are because we would have them if we were alone in the world.  They make no demands on others but to respect those rights.  The right to the fruit of our own labor; the right to our opinions and beliefs and to express and practice them freely; the right to enter into voluntary associations with others; the right to raise our children according to our own values; the right to defend ourselves from those who would deny us these rights.    Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.
Government does not create these rights; rather WE create governments to protect these rights.
In other countries, government is the sovereign and rights flow from it to the people.  In America, the people are sovereign and loan to their government certain enumerated powers defined by the Constitution.  
And as Ronald Reagan once said, “The Constitution is not the government’s document telling the people what it can and cannot do.  The Constitution is the people’s document, telling the government those things that we will allow it to do.”
Upon becoming a citizen, or taking up arms, or assuming office, Americans do not swear allegiance to the country or to the government.  The Oath you are about to take is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.  The reason is this – if we ever lose our Constitution, we have already lost our country.  It is the Constitution that defines what our government may do and that protects our liberty.  But it can only work as long as those who exercise its powers are obedient to it and that only works if “We, the People” insist on it through the votes we cast.  And if we ever cease to insist upon it, we will forfeit the Constitution and the liberty it protects.
The ancient Athenians had a word for citizen that continues into modern usage today.  The Greeks called a citizen a “politis,” from which we get the word, “politician.”  In the Athenian view, when one accepted the rights and privileges of citizenship, he also accepted the responsibilities to be an active participant in the politics of the community.  And in the American view, the ultimate aim of that participation is the preservation of our Constitution – what Daniel Webster called “the sacred and inviolable palladium.” He said, “Whatever variety of opinion may exist on other subjects, on this there must be but one.”  
You now join ten generations of Americans whose Constitution has produced the most productive, happy, prosperous and moral society in the history of human civilization.  You now take ownership of that Constitution and become “We the People of the United States.”  And you assume the sacred duty and obligation to preserve it, support and defend it, honor it, and pass it intact and inviolate to your children and their children to the latest generation.
Congratulations, fellow citizens.
Read More

Loading legislation ... one moment please
Loading votes ... one moment please

Contact Information

434 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone 202-225-2511
Fax 202-225-5444

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.

Serving With

Doug LaMalfa


Paul Cook


Jeff Denham


David Valadao


Devin Nunes


Kevin McCarthy


Steve Knight


Ed Royce


Ken Calvert


Mimi Walters


Dana Rohrabacher


Darrell Issa


Duncan Hunter


Recent Videos