McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5]
Republican · CA · 21 bills sponsored
Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act
# Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act Summary **What the Bill Would Do** The Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act would restrict federal funding to state and local governments that have "sanctuary" policies—rules that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts. If passed, jurisdictions that refuse to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or comply with certain federal immigration requests could lose federal grants and funding. **Who It Affects and Key Provisions** This bill would primarily impact cities and states with sanctuary policies, as well as their residents who rely on federally-funded services. It would also affect immigrants in those areas by potentially increasing immigration enforcement cooperation. The bill uses federal funding as leverage to pressure local governments to participate in immigration enforcement, even though local agencies currently have no legal obligation to do so. **Current Status** As of now, HR 7640 remains in committee and has not advanced to a floor vote. The bill reflects ongoing debate between those who view sanctuary policies as obstructing immigration enforcement and those who argue that local police should focus on community safety rather than federal immigration matters.
Proven Forest Management Act of 2025
# Proven Forest Management Act of 2025 - Summary **What the bill would do:** The Proven Forest Management Act would speed up forest management projects on federally-owned National Forests by reducing environmental review requirements. Specifically, it would allow fuel-reduction projects (like controlled burns and tree thinning) of up to 10,000 acres to skip certain lengthy environmental reviews required by federal law, as long as they're developed collaboratively and follow the forest's management plan. The bill also directs the Forest Service to pursue multiple environmental benefits from these projects when doing so isn't too costly. **Who it affects:** This bill primarily affects the U.S. Forest Service, which manages National Forests, as well as environmental groups, timber companies, and local communities near federal forests. Supporters argue it will help reduce catastrophic wildfires by allowing faster forest management. Environmental groups may have concerns about reduced oversight of large-scale projects. **Current status:** The bill (HR 179) was introduced in the 119th Congress by Republican Rep. Tom McClintock of California and is currently in committee, meaning it hasn't yet been debated or voted on by the full House.
To require the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out activities to suppress wildfires, and for other purposes.
# HR 178 Summary **What the Bill Would Do** HR 178 would require the U.S. Forest Service to aggressively suppress wildfires in high-risk areas within 24 hours of detection, using all available resources. The bill targets Forest Service lands experiencing severe drought, extreme wildfire activity, or located in areas with the highest wildfire exposure. It would also allow state and local fire agencies to assist without Forest Service interference and restrict the use of controlled fires (like backburns) to situations where a fire commander orders them or they're needed to protect firefighter safety. **Who It Affects and Current Status** The bill would primarily impact the Forest Service's wildfire management practices in drought-stricken and high-risk regions. Firefighters, rural communities near national forests, and state/local fire agencies would be affected by these new requirements. Currently, HR 178 is in committee, meaning it has not yet been debated or voted on by the full House of Representatives. The bill was introduced by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) and focuses on emergency response and forest management during wildfire crises.
Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians Land Transfer Act of 2025
# Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians Land Transfer Act of 2025 **What the bill does:** This bill would transfer approximately 204 acres of land in El Dorado County, California to the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, a federally recognized Native American tribe. The land would become part of the tribe's reservation and be held in trust by the federal government on their behalf. The transfer includes about 85 acres of federal land currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (and the Forest Service) plus about 119 acres the tribe already owns. The bill specifically prohibits the tribe from using any of this land for gaming or casinos. **Who it affects:** The bill primarily benefits the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians by expanding their reservation lands. It also affects federal land management agencies, which would transfer control of the federal acreage to the Department of the Interior. The local community in El Dorado County may be affected by changes to land use and tribal jurisdiction in the area. **Current status:** The bill has passed the House of Representatives and is awaiting action in the Senate.
No Immigration Benefits for Hamas Terrorists Act of 2025
# Summary: No Immigration Benefits for Hamas Terrorists Act of 2025 **What the bill does:** This legislation would prevent certain individuals from entering the United States or obtaining immigration protections. Specifically, it bars members of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and anyone who participated in or helped carry out the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel from being admitted to the U.S. The bill also expands existing restrictions by blocking all members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) from entry, not just their leaders. Additionally, it prevents anyone involved with these October 7 attacks from requesting asylum or other forms of immigration relief, such as protection from deportation to countries where they might face persecution. **Who it affects:** The bill primarily targets foreign nationals with alleged ties to these Palestinian militant organizations or the October 7 attacks. It could affect humanitarian cases, such as Palestinians seeking asylum, if they're determined to have any connection to the specified groups or events. **Current status:** The bill has passed the House of Representatives and awaits action in the Senate.
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Stone Slab Products Act
# Protection of Lawful Commerce in Stone Slab Products Act Summary This bill would protect manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of stone slab products from lawsuits related to health injuries caused by silicosis—a serious lung disease caused by inhaling crystalline silica dust during stone cutting and fabrication work. If passed, the legislation would shield these businesses from liability claims, similar to protections previously granted to firearms manufacturers and other industries. The bill primarily affects stone fabrication companies, retailers, and manufacturers who work with engineered and natural stone slabs used in countertops and other construction materials. It would also impact workers and consumers who develop silicosis from exposure to stone dust, as they would lose the ability to sue product manufacturers for damages. The legislation essentially bars lawsuits against the industry while the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) continues to regulate workplace safety standards. **Current Status:** The bill is currently in committee and has not advanced to a floor vote. It was introduced in the 119th Congress by Representative Tom McClintock (R-California).
Law Enforcement Officer and Firefighter Recreation Pass Act
# Law Enforcement Officer and Firefighter Recreation Pass Act Summary **What the bill does:** This bill would provide free lifetime passes to national parks and federal recreational lands for law enforcement officers and firefighters. Currently, these passes typically cost money and require renewal. Under this bill, eligible officers and firefighters would receive permanent, no-cost passes to use these federal recreation areas. **Who it affects:** The primary beneficiaries would be active and retired law enforcement officers and firefighters. The bill requires the Forest Service and Department of the Interior to administer the program. Visitors to national parks and federal recreational lands would not be directly affected, though some may view this as a benefit for public servants. **Current status:** The bill has passed the U.S. House of Representatives and is now in the legislative process. It still needs to be considered by the Senate before it could become law. The bill is relatively straightforward and faces no major stated opposition, though its Senate prospects depend on legislative priorities and scheduling.
Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act of 2025
# Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act of 2025 - Summary **What the Bill Would Do:** This bill would change how the federal government makes decisions about protecting endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. It requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to publish online the scientific data they use to decide whether a species needs protection. The bill also requires these agencies to share all their data with affected states before making a final decision. Additionally, it would limit how much money environmental groups can recover in attorney's fees if they win lawsuits related to endangered species protections. **Who It Affects:** This bill impacts state and local governments, environmental organizations, businesses in industries like energy and agriculture (which may be affected by species protections), and ultimately wildlife and conservation efforts. States would gain more input into endangered species decisions, while environmental groups' ability to fund legal challenges through lawsuit settlements would be reduced. **Current Status:** The bill was introduced by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) and is currently in committee, meaning it hasn't yet been debated or voted on by the full House of Representatives. No action has been taken to advance it further at this time.
To exempt certain forest management activities in Yosemite National Park from requirements of section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and for other purposes.
# HR 4041 Summary **What the Bill Would Do** HR 4041 would allow Yosemite National Park to conduct certain forest management activities without completing the environmental review process required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Specifically, it would exempt these activities from NEPA's Section 102 requirements, which normally mandate that federal agencies prepare detailed environmental impact assessments before undertaking projects that could affect the environment. **Who It Affects and Key Provisions** The bill primarily affects Yosemite National Park, its management operations, and potentially visitors and local communities near the park. Forest management activities typically include actions like tree thinning, controlled burns, and removal of dead or diseased trees—work that park officials argue is necessary for fire prevention and forest health. By exempting these activities from environmental review requirements, the bill would allow the park to act more quickly without the lengthy assessment process that normally accompanies such projects. **Current Status** As of now, HR 4041 remains in committee and has not advanced to a floor vote. The bill was introduced by Representative Tom McClintock (R-California) in the 119th Congress. No significant action has been taken, meaning the proposal is still in the early legislative stage.
Open America's Waters Act
# Open America's Waters Act (HR 3940) Summary **What It Would Do:** The Open America's Waters Act aims to expand access to federal waters for recreational activities, though the bill's specific provisions aren't detailed in the available information. Based on the title, it would likely make it easier for the public to use or access waterways on federal lands and waters, potentially removing or reducing restrictions on recreational use such as fishing, boating, or other water-based activities. **Who It Affects:** This bill would primarily affect recreational users (anglers, boaters, outdoor enthusiasts) and potentially the federal agencies that manage these waterways, such as the Bureau of Land Management or Fish and Wildlife Service. It could also impact conservation efforts if access restrictions exist for environmental reasons. **Current Status:** The bill is currently in committee, meaning it has not yet been debated or voted on by the full House of Representatives. It was introduced by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) in the 119th Congress, so it remains in the early legislative stage. *Note: More detailed information about specific provisions would be needed from the full bill text for a more comprehensive summary.*
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that new States may be admitted to the United States upon a concurrence of two thirds of each house of Congress.
# Summary of HJRES 99 **What the Bill Would Do** This bill proposes a constitutional amendment that would change how new states are admitted to the United States. Currently, the Constitution allows Congress to admit new states by simple majority vote in both the House and Senate. This proposal would require a two-thirds majority in each chamber instead—a higher threshold that would make it harder to add new states to the union. **Who It Affects and Current Status** The change would affect any future efforts to admit new territories as states, such as Puerto Rico, Washington D.C., or other U.S. territories. It would also impact Congress's authority over admissions. The bill was introduced by Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA) and is currently in committee, meaning it has not yet been debated or voted on by the full House of Representatives. Constitutional amendments require approval from two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures to take effect, making this a significant procedural hurdle.
End Taxpayer Subsidies for Electric Vehicles Act
# End Taxpayer Subsidies for Electric Vehicles Act (HR 2566) **What the Bill Would Do** This bill would eliminate federal tax credits and subsidies currently available to consumers who purchase electric vehicles. Under existing law, buyers can receive up to $7,500 in tax credits when purchasing qualifying EVs. The bill would remove these incentives, meaning consumers would no longer receive federal assistance to offset EV purchase costs. **Who It Affects** The bill would directly affect consumers considering EV purchases, EV manufacturers who benefit from increased sales driven by subsidies, and potentially the electric vehicle industry more broadly. Taxpayers would see a reduction in government spending on these programs, while those planning to buy electric vehicles would face higher out-of-pocket costs. **Current Status** As of now, HR 2566 is in committee, meaning it has been introduced but has not yet advanced to a full House vote. The bill requires committee review and approval before it can proceed further in the legislative process.
Repeal Community Development Block Grants Act of 2025
# Summary of HR 1133: Repeal Community Development Block Grants Act of 2025 **What the Bill Would Do** This bill would eliminate the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) program if passed. The CDBG program distributes federal funding to states and local communities to support housing, infrastructure, and economic development projects. By repealing this program, the federal government would stop providing this source of funding to cities and counties for community improvement initiatives. **Who It Affects** Local governments, nonprofits, and residents in communities across the country would be affected. Cities and rural areas currently rely on CDBG funding for projects like affordable housing construction, infrastructure repairs, and business development programs. Without these grants, communities would need to find alternative funding sources or reduce planned projects. **Current Status** The bill was introduced by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) and is currently in committee, meaning it has not yet been debated or voted on by the full House of Representatives. No action has been taken on the proposal at this time.
Action Versus No Action Act
# Action Versus No Action Act Summary **What it does:** This bill would change how the federal government evaluates the environmental impacts of forest management projects on public lands. Currently, agencies must consider multiple alternatives when deciding whether to approve logging or other forest activities. This bill would limit those options to just two: approve the proposed forest management project or take no action at all. This applies specifically to forests designated for treating insect and disease problems, projects developed through community input, or areas covered by wildfire protection plans. **Who it affects:** The bill primarily impacts the Forest Service and Department of Interior, which manage millions of acres of public forests. It affects communities near public forests, timber companies, environmental groups, and the general public who use or care about these lands. The bill aims to speed up decision-making for projects targeting forest health and wildfire prevention, but environmental organizations argue it could limit their ability to propose alternative approaches. **Current status:** The bill is currently in committee (as of the 119th Congress) and has not yet been voted on by the full House. It was introduced by Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA). The bill reflects ongoing debates about how to balance forest management efficiency with environmental review requirements.
Deport Alien Gang Members Act
# Deport Alien Gang Members Act Summary **What the bill would do:** If passed, this bill would make it easier to deport non-U.S. citizens who are associated with criminal gangs. It would prevent gang members from entering the country in the first place and remove those already here. The bill also creates a process for officially designating groups as "criminal gangs" for legal purposes. **Key provisions and who it affects:** The bill would require mandatory detention (holding without bail) for suspected gang members and block them from accessing several immigration protections, including asylum, temporary protected status, and special visas for immigrant children—with limited exceptions for those helping law enforcement. Immigration officers would be allowed to act on suspicion alone ("reason to believe") rather than requiring proof of gang membership. **Current status:** The bill is currently in committee, meaning it has not yet been debated or voted on by the full House of Representatives. It was introduced by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) in the 119th Congress. It has not advanced further in the legislative process.
Yosemite National Park Equal Access and Fairness Act
# Yosemite National Park Equal Access and Fairness Act Summary **What the bill does:** This bill would increase the annual payment San Francisco makes to use Hetch Hetchy Valley (a reservoir inside Yosemite National Park) from $30,000 to $2 million per year, adjusted annually for inflation. The bill also requires the National Park Service to expand public access to the reservoir and surrounding areas for recreation. The additional revenue would fund wildfire prevention and mitigation efforts in Yosemite and other California national parks. **Who it affects:** Primarily San Francisco (which uses the reservoir for water and power), Yosemite visitors, and California's national parks. The bill specifies that San Francisco cannot pass these increased costs to its water and power customers, meaning the city would absorb the expense. **Current status:** The bill is currently in committee (HR 177, 119th Congress), sponsored by Republican Tom McClintock of California. It has not yet been voted on by the full House.
Default Prevention Act
# Default Prevention Act (HR 182) Summary **What the Bill Would Do** The Default Prevention Act would give the federal government tools to prioritize which bills to pay if the nation reaches its debt ceiling and cannot borrow more money. Specifically, it would allow the Treasury Department to continue paying certain obligations—like Social Security, Medicare, military salaries, and interest on the national debt—even if the government runs out of cash and cannot pay all its bills at once. This is meant to prevent an actual financial "default" where the U.S. fails to pay its obligations. **Who It Affects and Key Provisions** The bill would primarily affect seniors relying on Social Security, Medicare recipients, disabled individuals receiving benefits, active military members, and creditors holding U.S. debt. By prioritizing these payments, the bill essentially protects them from potential cuts during a debt-ceiling crisis, though other government programs and services would face uncertainty about payment. The measure aims to prevent the economic disruption that could occur if critical payments weren't made. **Current Status** HR 182 is currently in committee and has not advanced to a full congressional vote. The bill was introduced in the 119th Congress by Republican Tom McClintock of California.
Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act
# Consequences for Social Security Fraud Act Summary **What the Bill Does:** If passed, HR 174 would make it easier to deny entry to or deport non-U.S. citizens who have been convicted of, or admitted to committing, Social Security fraud, identity document fraud, or COVID-19 relief fraud. Currently, these specific crimes are not automatically grounds for deportation or immigration denial under federal law. The bill would add them to the list of offenses that trigger these immigration consequences. **Who It Affects:** The bill would primarily affect non-U.S. citizens—including immigrants, visa holders, and permanent residents—who commit these types of fraud. It could also indirectly affect Americans who are victims of these fraud schemes, as the bill aims to remove perpetrators from the country. **Current Status:** The bill is in committee, meaning it has been introduced but has not yet been debated or voted on by the full House of Representatives. It was sponsored by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) in the 119th Congress.
To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that artificially propagated animals shall be treated the same under that Act as naturally propagated animals, and for other purposes.
# HR 181 Summary **What the bill would do:** HR 181 would change how the Endangered Species Act treats animals raised in captivity versus those in the wild. Currently, the law can distinguish between naturally propagated (wild) and artificially propagated (captive-bred) animals when making decisions about species protection. This bill would require the government to treat both types the same way. Additionally, it would require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to allow and authorize artificial breeding programs as a way to help protect endangered species when other conservation measures are required. **Who it affects and key provisions:** The bill would impact wildlife management decisions for all endangered and threatened species. Supporters argue it could enable more flexible conservation strategies using captive breeding, while critics worry it could weaken protections for wild populations by reducing the legal distinction between species living in natural habitats versus controlled breeding facilities. The bill applies retroactively to all currently listed species regardless of when they were added to the endangered species list. **Current status:** HR 181 is currently in committee and has not yet been voted on by the full House of Representatives. It was introduced in the 119th Congress by Representative Tom McClintock (R-California).
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting the United States Government from increasing its debt except for a specific purpose by law adopted by three-fourths of the membership of each House of Congress.
# Summary of HJRES 9 **What the Bill Would Do** This bill proposes a constitutional amendment that would require Congress to approve any increase in the national debt with a supermajority vote—specifically, three-fourths of members in both the House and Senate. Currently, Congress can raise the debt limit through a simple majority vote. If passed, this amendment would make it much harder for the government to borrow money, as it would require significantly more legislative support than is needed today. **Who It Affects and Key Provisions** The amendment would affect the federal government's ability to manage its finances and, by extension, Americans who depend on government programs and services. Any increase to the debt ceiling—the legal limit on how much the U.S. can borrow—would need approval from a much larger congressional majority. Supporters argue this could reduce government spending and deficits, while critics worry it could make it harder to fund essential programs, respond to emergencies, or manage economic crises. **Current Status** The bill is currently in committee, meaning it has been introduced but has not yet been voted on by the full House. Constitutional amendments require approval from two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and then ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures to become law, making this a lengthy process with a high bar for passage.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide certain line item veto authority to the President.
# Summary of HJRES 8: Presidential Line Item Veto Amendment **What the Bill Does** This proposal would amend the Constitution to give the President power to use a "line item veto"—the ability to reject specific spending items within a bill without vetoing the entire legislation. Currently, presidents must accept or reject bills in their entirety. If passed, the President would have 10 days to notify Congress of any spending cuts they make using this power, allowing lawmakers to override the cuts if two-thirds of both the House and Senate vote to disapprove. **Who It Affects and Key Provisions** This would primarily affect Congress and the President's relationship over federal spending. The amendment would apply to appropriations bills (legislation that funds government operations). The main protection for Congress is the two-thirds override threshold—a high bar that prevents the President from unilaterally cutting spending Congress approved. However, a constitutional amendment requires approval from two-thirds of both chambers and ratification by three-fourths of states, making it extremely difficult to pass. **Current Status** The bill is currently in committee, meaning it has not advanced for a full vote. It was introduced by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) and remains in the early stages of the legislative process.