Tom McClintock

Tom McClintock

CALIFORNIA's 4th DISTRICT

Continuing Resolution – Senate Amendment to HR 5325 – Fiscal Year 2017: YES

2016/09/29

Continuing Resolution –

Senate Amendment to HR 5325 – Fiscal Year 2017 Continuing Resolution: YES.  This bill avoids a government shutdown on October 1st by extending current spending authority through December 9th.  This is the WORST way to fund the government, because it fails to exercise congressional oversight through the budget and appropriations bills.  Unfortunately, sincere but poorly reasoned opposition from the “Freedom Caucus” blocked adoption of the budget this year and doomed legislative efforts to exercise that oversight.  Now we have the Hobson’s choice of continuing spending at current levels or shutting down the government on the eve of a presidential election.  Ironically, some conservatives who urged defeat of the budget now oppose the continuing resolution (CR) that has resulted from their opposition.  They are correct to note that it fails to exercise oversight and spends too much.  Yet, oddly, their solution is a much longer CR that carries these bad practices half-way through the next fiscal year!  

I normally share conservative skepticism of lame duck legislating, but the election of Donald Trump would dramatically change the lame duck dynamic.  This stopgap makes that prospect more likely by preventing a national fiscal crisis from disrupting and distracting from the election.  In short, this is the least damaging of the alternatives we currently have and it pains me that some of my conservative friends can’t see that.

Read More

H.R. 5303 Water Resources Development Act: YES

2016/09/29

H.R. 5303 - Water Resources Development Act:  YES.  On the plus side, out of a total of $10.5 billion for projects across the nation, this bill authorizes $1.6 billion for flood control projects in the Sacramento Delta.  (Of course, this would have been unnecessary if the Auburn Dam had been completed, but at the moment that’s, um, water under the bridge).  It also includes a provision I have long sought to allow the use of fish hatcheries to meet ESA requirements, which has the potential to save billions of dollars and billions of gallons of water.  Finally, it finances the projects by de-authorizing lower priority projects elsewhere in the country.  On the negative side, it includes $170 million to pay for Flint, Michigan’s incompetence in managing its local water system, establishing a dangerous precedent of using disaster funds to pay for bad local management.  In balance, though, it is a lop-sided benefit to our region and the hatchery reforms could result in enormous savings of both tax dollars and water.

Read More

S. 2040 Override of President’s Veto – JASTA (Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act): YES.

2016/09/29

S. 2040 Override of President’s Veto – JASTA (Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act): YES.  If a foreign government pays terrorists on U.S. soil to attack the United States, victims can sue for damages.  If that SAME government pays those SAME terrorists on foreign soil to attack the United States, those SAME victims CANNOT sue.  This measure closes that loophole.  The investigation into the attack on September 11th 2001 strongly implicates Saudi government officials, but both Bush and Obama thwarted the investigation and victims have been unable to sue those responsible.  Opponents argue that this would unravel the doctrine of sovereign immunity, exposing Americans to lawsuits overseas. But the laws of other countries are ALWAYS beyond our control.  This bill very narrowly applies to deliberate acts of terrorism carried out on American soil whether or not those orders originated on American soil.  This is hardly a precedent-shattering principle.  Closing this loophole at least assures that the truth will come out and that victims can seek compensation against those responsible through American courts. 

 


    

Read More

Zika Funding

2016/09/16

 

Zika Funding

A recent letter writer asks my position on Zika funding and why Congress has not acted.

With my support, the House voted in June to appropriate $1.1 billion to combat Zika – the result of a bi-partisan conference agreement.  There was no debate on the measure, because it was taken up on the day House Democrats staged their sit-in, physically blocking access to the microphones and shouting down any who tried to speak from the well.  Nevertheless, the bill passed on a vote of 239-171, with most Democrats opposing.

The Senate tried three times to take up the bill, but each time was blocked by Senate Democrats on a procedural vote. (It requires 60 votes to consider most legislation in the Senate).  They have held Zika funding hostage over two issues.  

First, environmental extremists object to funding mosquito abatement.  Mosquitoes are the principal vector of this disease and abatement is critical to slowing its spread.  According to the Centers for Disease Control, this is “the most effective way to prevent and control mosquito-borne disease” like the Zika virus.

Second, abortion extremists object to appropriating $95 million in Social Services Block Grant funds "for health services provided by public health departments, hospitals, or reimbursed through public health plans."  Why?  Because it doesn’t specifically earmark money directly to Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood is in no way restricted from applying for these grants, and apparently only one Planned Parenthood affiliate in Puerto Rico currently fails to meet criteria for funding, and in that case, other clinics are eligible and available.

The House has acted, Senate Republicans have acted, but Senate Democrats continue to hold up funding to appease the environmental and abortion extremists in their ranks.  Sadly, if the Senate had acted on the House bill sent to them in June, we might have been on top of this disease by now.

 

Read More

Federal Lands Subcommittee Legislative Hearing on H.R. 5780, Utah Public Lands Initiative Act

2016/09/14

Congressman McClintock is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.  The subcommittee held a legislative hearing on September 14, 2016.  Congressman McClintock delivered the following opening statement:

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

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 5780, Utah Public Lands Initiative Act

September 14, 2016

Good morning. Today, the Subcommittee on Federal Lands meets to hear testimony on H.R. 5780, the Utah Public Lands Initiative Act, brought to us by the Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Rob Bishop. 

This subcommittee measures bills according to three over-arching objectives for federal lands management: to restore public access to the public lands, to restore sound management practices to the public lands and to restore the federal government as a good neighbor to the communities directly impacted by the public lands.

Of all the bills we have seen during this Congress, I believe no one has tried harder to adhere to these principles than Chairman Bishop in the bill before us today, the Public Lands Initiative (PLI). 

Although the Federal Government owns only 7/10ths of one percent of New York, 1.1 percent of Illinois, 1.6 percent of Massachusetts and 1.8 percent of Texas, it owns nearly half of California, 4/5 of Nevada and 2/3 of Congressman Bishop’s home state of Utah.

This creates enormous problems and economic distress on the communities impacted by federal land ownership, and the bill before us is the result of many years of work, collaboration and compromise by Chairman Bishop that has produced a locally-driven solution to some of Utah’s most daunting land management issues. 

His bill promises to expand public recreational access, protect grazing, and ensure the continued use of off-highway vehicles. The PLI includes protections against federal overreach and ensures that the State of Utah can have control over its own economic and energy future. 

This bill is a give and take for all who were involved, but ultimately ensures certainty and resolution to the State of Utah.     

To be clear, I would not support the compromises in this bill if they were stand-alone legislation.  It designates millions of acres for wilderness that makes scientific land management nearly impossible.  It confers 360 miles of new Wild and Scenic River designations that have proven disastrous at Yosemite, where the Merced River designation is now being used to remove long-standing visitor amenities including bicycle and horse rentals, historic stone bridges and lodging.

But these concessions were made in order to provide certainty and stability for other lands that are exchanged and consolidated for beneficial use by the public, and inclusion of local and tribal governments in many land management decisions from which they were previously excluded. 

Most importantly, this bill pre-empts arbitrary and capricious designations threatened in the final throes of the Obama administration.  Mr. Obama’s threatened monument designations are focused on appeasing out-of-state interests at the expense of local people struggling to have good paying jobs and keep their public schools open after monuments engulf their communities. In contrast, this bill seeks to create a national monument that the people of Utah and its tribes actually support.

This President has relied on the Antiquities Act – originally written in 1906 to provide temporary protection of archeological sites from looting -- to lock up 548 million acres of land and water lands on whim.  That’s an area larger than the states of California, Texas, Oregon, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico combined. This abuse of power means the public is largely forbidden from enjoying traditional recreational pursuits on the public lands, including snowmobiling, hunting, fishing, shooting, off-highway vehicle use.  
In my own district, these same special interests are trying to convert the Sierra National Forest into a 1.3 million-acre Sierra National Monument, obliterating the last remaining timber jobs in our communities and making the management of our lands impossible at a time of severe drought and beetle infestation.  If successful, I would suggest naming it the “Burnt Forest National Monument,” where school children can come to see what leftist environmentalism has done to the environment. 

I’m not sure to whom President Obama thinks he is accountable, but here in Congress we believe it’s our constituents.  Ultimately, it is up to our elected officials, such as Chairman Bishop and Commissioner Rebecca Benally, who is here today, to represent their local residents and be held accountable for their land use choices. 

I hope the administration officials here today pay close attention to the loud and resounding opposition to a unilateral monument designation and let local elected officials decide the fate of lands in Utah. 

With that, I look forward to hearing testimony from today’s witnesses and I now recognize the Ranking Member for her opening statement. 

# # #

Read More

Payments in Lieu of Taxes

2016/09/09

Payments in Lieu of Taxes
National Association of Counties
September 8, 2016


    When we talk of PILT funding, we should never lose sight of the fact that it is a very, very poor substitute for revenues generated locally by healthy economic activity.  Our ultimate objective should be not to institutionalize PILT funding, but to restore a healthy balance between federal land ownership and productive private ownership of the lands within each county in the nation.

    The House Natural Resources Committee has compiled a meticulous catalog of federal land holdings consolidated into a federal footprint map.  It is quite revealing.

    The federal government owns just 7/10ths of one percent of the State of New York.  It owns just 1.1 percent of the State of Illinois.  It owns just 1.8 percent of the State of Texas.

    But then go further west and you will see the problem.  The Federal Government owns and controls 62 percent of the state of Alaska, 2/3 of Utah and 81 percent of the state of Nevada.  It owns 48 percent of my home state of California.  Nearly half.  In one county in my district – Alpine County – the federal government owns 93 percent of the land.  

    And the people from the eastern half of the United States have no idea what that means.  That’s all land that’s off the local tax rolls.  That’s all land that carries increasingly severe restrictions on public use and access, which means it’s generating very little economic activity to these regions.  And often, federal ownership means that federal land use policies are in direct contravention to the wishes of the local communities that are entangled with it.

    More than a century ago, we began setting aside the most beautiful lands in the nation for the “use, resort and recreation” of the American people, in the words of the original Yosemite Grant signed by Abraham Lincoln in 1864. 

    But somewhere along the way, “public use, resort and recreation” became “look, but don’t touch.”  And the federal government became indiscriminate and voracious in the amount of land under its direct control.  

    My congressional district is in the heart of the Sierra Nevada.  Common complaints from my constituents and local government officials range from abusive federal regulatory enforcement, inflated fees that have forced families to abandon cabins they’ve held for generations, exorbitant new fees that are closing down long-established community events, road closures, and arbitrary denial of grazing permits for family ranchers who go back generations on that land.  A small town trying to install a $2 million spillway gate for their reservoir was just given a $6 million estimate from the Forest Service to relocate a hiking trail and a handful of campsites.  

    And we can’t even take care of the land we already own.  The National Park Service reports a $12 billion maintenance backlog.  Environmental restrictions on forest management have resulted in catastrophic overcrowding – we have roughly four times the tree density per acre that the land can support.  In that stressed condition, the trees lose their resilience to resist the impact of drought, pestilence and disease.  In the Sierra National Forest, an estimated 85 percent of the pine stock is now dead – posing a severe fire danger to the mountain communities and to the Yosemite National Park.

    So we can’t take care of the land we have and your local communities are stuck with an inattentive and incompetent landlord.  And PILT funding only makes a small dent in this bad situation.

    Tuolumne County includes much of Yosemite National Park and is one of the biggest recipients of PILT funding in my district.  The federal government owns 75 percent of the land in that county.  It gets $2.2 million in PILT funding out of roughly $150 million in operating revenue.  So the federal government sits on 75 percent of its potential property tax base and compensates it 1.5 percent of its budget in PILT funding.

    Fresno County is the largest PILT recipient in my district.  The federal government sits on 40 percent of its land and compensates it by one percent of its budget.

    Our short term goal is reauthorization and appropriation for next year.  There will be a short term CR and it will have reauthorization and appropriation funding in it for PILT.  It always does.  It most likely provide a one year authorization along with a very short term appropriation – most likely through December when the issue will be revisited in light of the election.  

    Our intermediate goal must be long term reauthorization, so that you don’t have to come back here every six to 12 months and so that you can plan long-term for what PILT funding you can expect to receive.  Counties impacted by excessive federal land ownership should not have to beg to reauthorize this compensation every year.  The problem is that every authorization must have a fiscal offset, and it is easier to find an offset one year at a time than for ten.  That is not an insoluble problem, but it is why the typical pattern of PILT authorization has been to take the path of least resistance, particularly with so many other fiscal issues demanding Congressional attention.

    But our long term goal must be to restore adequate land to every county to support a thriving local economy and an ample local tax base.  And that’s why we have to keep educating our eastern colleagues who don’t have this problem.  I point to little Alpine County and ask people to imagine how the economy of their community would fare if the federal government owned 93 percent of the land in their county, forbade or greatly restricted any economic activity on it, and ignored the pleas of their local city council or county board?

    I realize each county is different.  Mariposa County in my district includes Yosemite Valley, one of the crown jewels of the National Park System.  Obviously, the federal government’s presence there is essential for the preservation of this national treasure.  There is always going to be a bigger federal footprint there than other parts of the country.

    But we’ve got to restore balance and common sense to federal land ownership and management.  Look at the Federal District of Columbia.  Washington, D.C.  The nation’s capital.  Look at the national mall, all the government buildings, all the memorials and parks.  The federal government owns roughly one fourth of the land area of the federal capital.  There is no earthly reason it should be sitting on 2/3 of Utah, 4/5 of Nevada or half of California.  

    It reminds me of Lincoln’s story of the farmer who said, “I ain’t greedy for land – all I want is what’s next to mine.”

    The Federal Lands Subcommittee has three principal goals: 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 most impacted by the federal lands.

    But overarching these imperatives is the simple fact that excessive federal land ownership in the West has become a stultifying drag on our economies and a direct impediment to taking good care of our public lands.  

    There needs to be a proper balance between federal ownership, state and local stewardship and the productive private ownership of lands.  One look at the federal footprint map should warn even the most casual observer that we have lost that balance, and we need to restore it.

Read More

The Growing Federal Footprint

2016/09/07

The Growing Federal Footprint
House Chambers, Washington, D.C.
September 7, 2016

Mr. Speaker:

    I want to thank Congressman Gohmert for organizing this discussion of federal lands policy, and to highlight the Federal Footprint Map at Naturalresources.house.gov/federalfootprint.   Or just google Federal Footprint.

    When you do, you’ll have a complete picture of how much land the federal government owns and how much of your state and your community is affected.  And it may surprise you.

    It owns just 7/10ths of one percent of the State of New York.  It owns just 1.1 percent of the State of Illinois.  It owns just 1.8 percent of the State of Texas.

    But then go further west and you will see the reason for the Western revolt.  The Federal Government owns and controls 62 percent of the state of Alaska, 2/3 of Utah and 81 percent of the state of Nevada.  It owns 48 percent of my home state of California.  Nearly half.  In one county in my district – Alpine County – the federal government owns 93 percent of the land.

    If you are not from one of the Western states, you need to understand what that means.  That’s all land that’s off the local tax rolls.  It’s land that carries increasingly severe restrictions on public use and access, which means it’s generating very little economic activity to these regions.  And often, federal ownership means that federal land use policies are in direct contravention to the wishes of the local communities entangled with it.

    Recently, the Natural Resources Committee held a field hearing in North Las Vegas at the request of Congressman Crescent Hardy.  

    If you’ve flown into Las Vegas, you know how vast are the empty and unutilized lands of Nevada, stretching as far as the horizon.  Yet local leaders all complained of how the region’s economy suffers from a great shortage of land – for homes and shops, businesses and infrastructure.   What an irony – and what a commentary about the harm that is being done by the decisions of our federal land managers.

    More than a century ago, we began setting aside the most beautiful lands in the nation for the “use, resort and recreation” of the American people.  

    But somewhere along the way, “public use, resort and recreation” became “look, but don’t touch.”  And the federal government became indiscriminate and voracious in the amount of land under its direct control.  

    My congressional district is in the heart of the Sierra Nevada.  Common complaints from my constituents and local government officials range from abusive federal regulatory enforcement, inflated fees that have forced families to abandon cabins they’ve held for generations, exorbitant new fees that are closing down long-established community events, road closures, and arbitrary denial of grazing permits for family ranchers who go back generations on that land.  A small town trying to install a $2 million spillway gate for their reservoir was just given a $6 million estimate from the Forest Service to relocate a hiking trail and a handful of campsites.  

    Let me relate one quick story that came to me from the Sheriff of Plumas County just outside my district.  An elderly couple horseback riding near their home came across an old horseshoe.  An ambitious young forest service official saw them pick it up.  The next thing they knew, six federal law enforcement officers descended on their home, tore it apart, and ultimately prosecuted them for removing the horseshoe.  Ultimately the federal judge dismissed the charges and chastised the officials responsible for this travesty – but only after this couple had gone through hell.

       Ask yourself, how would your local economy fare if the federal government owned 93 percent of the land in your county, forbade or greatly restricted any economic activity on it, and ignored your local city council or county board?

    In my district, the federal government has consigned our forests to a policy of benign neglect, we now have roughly four times more trees per acre than the land can support.  In this overcrowded and stressed condition, the trees can no longer resist drought and beetle infestation.  An estimated 85 percent of the pine trees in the Sierra National Forest adjacent to Yosemite are dead.  Christmas-tree-in-July-dead.  

    The National Park Service estimates it is facing more than $12 billion of maintenance backlog, yet we keep adding to the federal holdings that we can’t take care of.

    That’s why the federal footprint map is so important to understand, and why fundamental reform of our land use policy is of paramount importance.

    The Federal Lands Subcommittee has three principal goals: 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 most impacted by the federal lands.

    But overarching these imperatives is the simple fact that excessive federal land ownership in the West has become a stultifying drag on our economies and a direct impediment to taking good care of our public lands.  

    I think Congressman Gohmert put it best in a hearing last year when he compared the federal government to the miser whose old mansion has become the town eyesore – the yard is overgrown with weeds, the paint is peeling, the roof is dilapidated, the windows are broken – while he spends all his money and attention on plotting to acquire his neighbors’ properties.

    There needs to be a proper balance between federal ownership, state and local stewardship and the productive private ownership of lands.  One look at the federal footprint map should warn even the most casual observer that we have lost that balance, and we need to restore it.

Read More

Forest Fire Prevention

2016/08/08


Natural Resources Committee Oversight Field Hearing: “Improving Federal Land Management and Use to Better Serve Las Vegas Valley Communities”

2016/07/26

Opening Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Tom McClintock
House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Federal Lands

Oversight Field Hearing: “Improving Federal Land Management and Use to Better Serve Las Vegas Valley Communities”

July 26, 2016

I want to thank Chairman Bishop and Congressman Hardy for holding this hearing today and to thank both of them for their leadership in the House on behalf of so many communities throughout the West that are affected by federal land ownership.

As I flew in today I couldn’t help but notice how vast are the empty and unutilized lands of Nevada, stretching as far as the horizon.  And then I reflected on the testimonies of our witnesses today, who tell of how the region’s economy suffers from a great shortage of land – for homes and shops, businesses and infrastructure.   What an irony – and what a commentary about the harm that is being done by the decisions of our federal land managers.

I am also struck by the complete disconnect between the written testimony of the BLM’s director for the State of Nevada and the testimony of the locally elected representatives of the people of Clark County.  

The federal land manager boasts of the collaborative and cooperative relationship he has fostered between the federal and local governments.  He tells of his abiding interest in accommodating the prosperity of the region in his decisions.  Yet Clark County’s elected representatives tell a very different story of BLM indifference, micro-management and interference in critical land use decisions.   

In addition, we will hear testimony that BLM mismanagement is doing enormous economic harm to the region, threatening increasing unemployment, stagnating or declining wages and a deteriorating quality of life for the people of Southern Nevada.  

Congressman Hardy has often spoken of this in our Committee, but I don’t think I ever fully appreciated the extent of the problem in southern Nevada until his invitation to come here today.

The Federal Lands Subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee is pursing three over-arching objectives: to restore public access to the public lands; to restore sound management of the federal lands; and to restore the federal government as a good neighbor to the communities directly impacted by the federal lands.  The written testimony today tells me we have a long ways to go.

I’m particularly concerned with testimony that the BLM gives short shrift to the economic impact caused by its decisions involving the roughly 85 percent of Nevada that it controls.  This has obviously created an artificial land shortage in one of the most expansive and undeveloped regions of our country and is damaging the economy of southern Nevada.  

I am incredulous to learn that, once Congress has provided for the use of lands for critical public safety purposes such as flood control, the BLM would directly and deliberately interfere with the operation of these facilities in the most incompetent manner conceivable.

I also want to hear more about reports that BLM is requiring homebuilders to obtain mining permits for the simple act of grading lots.  This ludicrous interpretation of BLM’s authority is significantly inflating the cost of new housing, impeding the economy, causing uncertainty in the residential sector, and pushing young families out of the new home market.

The testimony suggests that working with the BLM here has become an onerous, expensive and time-consuming process.  It also suggests an attitude at BLM that the federal bureaucracy knows the needs of local communities better than the local communities themselves.  

BLM is currently revising the Las Vegas Field Office Resource Management Plan, which guides the management of BLM lands around the city and includes BLM’s decisions regarding parcels of land that have already been leased to the County or other municipal entities and the identification of parcels for potential disposal or lease. 

Today I would urge the BLM to craft a Resource Management Plan that accommodates economic growth in the city, identifies adequate parcels for disposal or lease, and doesn’t needlessly lock up lands needed for economic development, infrastructure, housing or other community projects. 

Finally, I am interested in learning today how much of this harm is created by ideological zealots in this administration, and how much is a result of laws that Congress needs to reform.  

The committee is here today to take note and to make change, and I once again thank Congressman Hardy for his insistence that we come here to see for ourselves.

# # #
      

Read More

S. 764 - GMO Food Labelling: YES

2016/07/14

S. 764 – GMO Food Labelling: YES.  Mankind has genetically modified crops and livestock since the dawn of recorded history (it’s called cross-breeding, and it gives us seedless grapes and sweeter corn).  A movement has recently emerged that contends – despite every scrap of available scientific evidence – that genetic modifications are dangerous and demands that all foods be labeled as to their genetic modifications.  State governments are now responding with intricate labeling requirements. The food industry fears this will produce a patchwork of local and state regulations that would make interstate commerce impossible. The House acted to provide a voluntary, uniform standard for those producers that wanted to market their products accordingly.  The Senate version mandates product labeling. I MUCH preferred the voluntary standard and would normally oppose the mandate.  However, in this case it would prevent a serious disruption in food markets threatened by patchwork local requirements, and as a practical matter it means a pro forma disclaimer that will educate the public that virtually every food they’ve eaten for years is in some way genetically modified.  In short: it is a bad precedent that we shouldn’t follow very far, but in this case it does more good than harm.

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
mcclintock.house.gov

Committee Assignments

Budget

Natural Resources

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

CALIFORNIA's 1st DISTRICT

Paul Cook

CALIFORNIA's 8th DISTRICT

Jeff Denham

CALIFORNIA's 10th DISTRICT

David Valadao

CALIFORNIA's 21st DISTRICT

Devin Nunes

CALIFORNIA's 22nd DISTRICT

Kevin McCarthy

CALIFORNIA's 23rd DISTRICT

Steve Knight

CALIFORNIA's 25th DISTRICT

Ed Royce

CALIFORNIA's 39th DISTRICT

Ken Calvert

CALIFORNIA's 42nd DISTRICT

Mimi Walters

CALIFORNIA's 45th DISTRICT

Dana Rohrabacher

CALIFORNIA's 48th DISTRICT

Darrell Issa

CALIFORNIA's 49th DISTRICT

Duncan Hunter

CALIFORNIA's 50th DISTRICT

Recent Videos