♪♪♪ Scott: California's fifth District Congressman Tom McClintock has served the region since 2009.

Representative McClintock serves on the House Judiciary, Natural Resources and Budget Committees.

He joins us today to share his insights on the major issues confronting Congress and their impact back home.

Welcome, Congressman McClintock.

Tom: Thank you, Scott.

Thanks for having me.

Scott: Congressman, I want to start with what drives you.

I want to go back to the beginning.

You have lived your life, uh, much of your life in public service.

What are the core principles that have driven you and your political philosophy?

Tom: In a word, freedom.

The founding principles of our American Republic.

Constitutionally limited government.

Um, uh... uh...

Personal liberty And personal responsibility.

You know, Lincoln answered that question once when...

When he says, “you know, all of you -- ” he was actually doing a flag raising at Independence Hall on his way to Washington, And he said, “all of the political convictions that I have are drawn as far as I can tell from the principles in the Declaration of Independence.

” And that pretty much sums up my worldview very succinctly.

Scott: You know, years ago you had made a speech and you talked about how there were, um, almost -- and I'm paraphrasing, almost like two polarities that were at odds with each other in trying to define the American experience.

One were the founding fathers precepts of what they had written about in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and talking about inalienable rights from the Creator.

On the other hand, you talked about Marx and Hegel, philosopher, German philosopher, and talked about that rights -- Some believe that rights came from the government.

Explain...

Explain to us how it is that you see kind of the broad dichotomy in terms of the political philosophies that are constantly at each other in trying to define the American experience.

Tom: Well, it doesn't just define the American experience.

I think it defines all human experience.

I think if you look to any time in history, any part of the world, you'll see basically two fundamental parties.

They will go by different names and different times and different lands.

But... but at the same two parties, because they're hardwired into our own nature.

On the one hand, we are always happier and more productive and more prosperous when we can make our own decisions, lead our lives according to our own best judgment.

And yet there's also a part of us that's hierarchical in nature.

We really like it when people do what we tell them to do.

And I think it's those two conflicting elements in our own nature that drive so much of politics.

And that was clearly discussed in the... in the Declaration of Independence and those very familiar words we read around July the fourth, but don't often focus on we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And then the founders answer the all important question What's the purpose of government that's secure these rights?

Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

In the American view, there is a certain class of rights that we don't get from government.

They predate government.

We'd have them if we were alone in the world.

And we know what they are because we can deduce them by our very existence.

If you were alone in the world, there were no governments.

What rights would you have?

Well, you certainly have the right to your opinion and to express it freely.

You'd have the right to your religious beliefs and to practice those freely.

You'd have the right to the fruit of your own labor, the right to raise your children according to your own values.

You would have those rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And since they predate government, they obviously cannot come from government.

They come from what the founders called the laws of Nature and of nature's God.

We are born with them.

And I think that every political controversy down through history is a conflict between that and the concept that that those rights come from government for the greater good.

Scott: Let... let me let me ask you a question, though.

You've articulated that very well without dividing it into party.

What percentage of your colleagues do you believe have as reasoned an understanding of that... that capsule?

I can't, Scott...

I can't read minds.

I don't know.

Scott: No, no, no, no... Tom: I think it's held...

I think its held by... by... by many.

Again, it was... it was given clear discussion in the... in the Declaration of Independence.

Alexis de Tocqueville came here in the 1830s to figure out why it was that the American Revolution had been such a great success and the French Revolution ended in such a ghastly failure.

And one of the central themes in his... his work, Democracy in America, goes right back to that question.

Did the French believed that their rights came from the Committee on the Rights of Man?

The Americans believed they came from God, he says.

The Americans believe in God.

He says, I don't know.

I can't.

Scott: So, so... Tom: I cant look into the hearts of men.

But... but I do know that the Americans believe that this concept is absolutely essential for the preservation of their rights.

Scott: So, Congressman, that... that being said, okay, if you believe that the vast majority of your colleagues are as informed on that... of that world view as you are, how do you think that you all have done as a Congress and as a government in embodying those in the laws that we currently live under?

Tom: I think the founders did an extraordinary job putting together a constitution that was, uh, big enough to empower the government to protect those natural rights, but not too big to become a threat to them.

Uh... uh...

I think - Scott: Is there a threat today?

Tom: I think that there is.

I think that... that those constitutional protections have been eroding over time.

And I worry about that greatly.

Scott: Well, well, let's talk about those constitutional protections.

Recently, there was a bill expanding the definition of hate speech to encompass anti-Semitism.

Did you vote for that particular piece of legislation?

Tom: Well, last week I did, yes.

Scott: Okay.

So, um, you have... you have a reputation as being someone who is a fierce defender of your view of the Constitution.

Tell us what made you comfortable in supporting that particular piece of legislation and fitting that in the framework of freedom of speech, where people who like a colleague of yours across the aisle, Jerry Nadler, was... was extremely uncomfortable with it, voted against the bill because of the fact that he felt that from a constitutional perspective, that we have to be very careful on curtailing speech within this country.

And you've spoken on that before.

Tom: No... no...

I agree on that point.

And I was not entirely comfortable with it.

In fact, I've said I thought it could have been much more tightly worded.

However, the... the... the overall question was, how is that going to be applied to Title, uh, nine of the Civil Rights Act?

And it seemed to me some definition was required in order to... to give meaning to that to that term.

But generally, you know, but I respect Jerry's opposition to it very much.

Um, and I would have...

I would have tried to write it a lot more tightly if... if it had been up to me.

Scott: Uh... uh, I'm...

I'm curious, when you talk about some of the votes, you know, a vote like that one, which is a tough vote, when is it that you have felt in terms of standing on principle, most ill at ease in terms of where the sort of current fashion of either your party or just in Congress itself is on essentially being adverse to your protection -- your view of protecting the Constitution?

Tom: Well, first of all, everything in politics is a compromise.

The only politician I ever agreed with on absolutely everything is me.

Everything else is a compromise.

And so, too are so many of the bills that we vote on.

Benjamin Franklin addressed that in the Constitutional Convention in his last speech.

You know, he points out that when you draw together a group of people to benefit from their collective wisdom, you are also going to invariably collect their their falling.

And from such a system, a perfect answer is is not to be expected.

He then went on to say, But I'm quite surprised and pleased with with how close to perfection this constitution is.

And, you know, I think that's true of all of the measures that we consider.

They are all compromises.

We all have different viewpoints.

And that's the beauty of our legislative process, is what the founders wanted.

You know, when a decision was being made, they wanted a great big food fight where every voice was heard and every question was held up to every conceivable light.

And that's what the legislative process does.

And it's a messy process, But... but it comes up with some pretty good decisions most of the time.

Scott: Well, you were named by a Seattle Times reporter in the past as the perfect conservative because you had gotten a 100% rating from the American conservative Union.

And I'm curious, given the fact that... that there's nowhere to go upwards from 100%, what is your perspective on your party?

Is... is the Republican Party of 2024, actually a conservative party?

Tom: I think so, for the most part.

Uh, again, not perfect.

Scott: Where are the exceptions?

Well, uh, I can go through a number of all the positions that the party has been listing toward on.

On trade concerns Me, I believe very firmly in free trade.

That is the engine of prosperity that has... that has enhanced every country that has practiced it.

Protectionism has destroyed the economies of every country that's practiced that.

So, you know, there is some drift, I think, on some of the economic issues.

Scott: Well, the one that I - Tom: I think we could have done Tom: a lot better at, uh... at, uh, controlling our spending, particularly when we had majorities in both houses and the presidency.

Tom: So - Scott: Im glad you...

I'm glad you went there on that one, because that's the one I actually wanted to ask you about.

So there's a... there's a cynical observation among some who say that the only time that Republicans really care about fiscal conservatism is when the Democrats in the White House and it... it does appear that there is... there is a lot of talk about, uh, conservatism.

Deficit reduction, the overall national debt and all that sort of thing uh, right now.

But in the last administration, people spent pretty wildly How... how do you square, um, kind of the Republican profile on being as and I'm -- I'll...

I'll put this out here so you can react to it being this, uh, sort of just free... free spending when they're in office or in control as the Republicans claim the Democrats are.

Tom: I think the criticism is... is well founded.

I will say in defense of... of Republicans, that the only criticism we had from the Democrats in those years is we weren't spending money fast enough.

So it is -- there's a... there's a degree of relativity there that needs to be -- But... but there's... there's no question that... that we failed in one of our principal responsibilities, and that was to get spending back under control.

It's gotten -- again, you look at the trend lines has gotten infinitely worse under this administration with Republican opposition.

But you're right, Republicans could have done much more to control spending.

You know, I'll give you just one example, is... is earmarks, which I find a constitutional abomination.

They combine the power to appropriate with the power to spend.

Those are powers that have been divided, uh, since the Magna Carta.

Uh... uh, republicans rejected them a decade ago.

Now they embrace them.

Scott: Well, actually... actually, good point.

So, okay, the typical assumption about a congressional representative is that they represent the interests and the people of their district.

At the same time, there is a constant push and shove on gathering resources.

How is it that you representing your district, square the notion of, um, rejecting the sort of abomination that you talk about, that earmarks embody with the concept, and I don't want to be crass, but it's typically known as bringing home the bacon for the district.

Tom: Yes, I've heard that phrase many times before.

Tom: How do you actually traverse that chasm?

Tom: Well, very simply, uh, the -- what I tell folks is simply this I oppose earmarks.

I oppose a lot of the grant programs.

But if they are passed over my objections, uh, as far as the grant programs are concerned, I will try to get as much as I can for the district through the constitutional process, a merit based, competitive process as I can, because it's the people of my district are paying their share of the taxes to support these programs.

They deserve a share of the benefits.

But where I draw the line is this practice of earmarking funds.

Meritorious projects don't require earmarks.

Meritorious projects survive very well in a competitive environment on their merits.

It's the unmeritorious projects that require earmarks.

And what I've found over the years is those are generally the lowest priority projects that local governments will not fund with their own funds, but are perfectly happy to have somebody else fund them instead.

I think we turned our federal Treasury into a grab bag for local pork projects and -- by this process literally robbing Saint Petersburg to pay Saint Paul.

And that is not sound fiscal management.

And it defeats the entire purpose of federalism, uh, that, uh... uh, requires that any program that exclusively benefits a local community ought to be paid for by that local community exclusively and controlled by that local community.

Scott: You chair, uh, the Judiciary Committees Subcommittee on Immigration.

I know the title is longer than that, but it leads with immigration.

Exlpain -- Share with us your view of the immigration and border debate that seems to be at least up until this point, unsolvable by Congress.

Tom: Well, it actually is quite solvable.

We saw it solved under Donald Trump.

Illegal immigration had slowed to a trickle because of policies that he implemented under current laws.

The Remain in Mexico policy had all but stopped phony asylum claims.

The border wall is nearing completion.

ICE was actually enforcing court ordered deportations, which was perhaps the most important element because as illegals are returned to their countries, having paid the cartels thousands and thousands of dollars to cross the border, word gets around pretty fast.

That's probably not a wise investment.

All of that was reversed on Joe Biden's first day in office, uh... uh, when he rescinded Remain in Mexico, ordered a halt to the border wall, ordered ICE to stop enforcing the court order deportations.

And that has produced the largest mass migration of illegal immigration in history.

And the result is -- the numbers are now staggering of some 6.9 million illegals, between those deliberately released into the country and the known got aways.

Scott: But...

But... Tom: Thats the population... Thats a population larger than the state of Indiana That is catastrophic.

Scott: Ok, but... but part of the current administration's reversal, it's my understanding it had to do with compliance with a number of lawsuits that the Trump administration lost.

But also even if those lawsuits weren't present.

Moreover, trying to deal with, um, the border situation in a more humane way, such as the separation of families with children and that sort of thing.

Um... How is it that you -- that... that the Republican agenda would do this job better with regards to border protection?

But also do it in a way where it is that, um, human rights, those... those basically creator given rights that you referenced a few minutes ago, are respected and honored.

Tom: Well, the laws didn't change.

The presidency changed, and the policies under that presidency changed.

You know, I was with a group of border Patrol agents in Yuma last year, and I said, “look, Congress writes the laws, we can't enforce them.

So what laws do you need us to write?

And they unanimously said we don't need new laws, we need to enforce the laws that we already have.

Donald Trump did.

Joe Biden didn't.

And the result has never been more dramatic in the history of... of... of mass illegal migration.

And again, the impact that's having on the resources of this country is staggering.

Scott: If you could focus your colleagues in Congress and let's just say administration without a label on it, okay, on three issues, focusing this country and get them solved.

What do you, based on all your years of experience, and your vantage point, think are the three issues that the country should be most focused on at this moment?

Tom: Well, we've covered them, actually.

The most important are illegal immigration, you know, history screaming this warning at us.

The countries that either cannot or will not enforce our border simply aren't around very long.

And - Scott: And why is that?

And why is that?

Tom: Because a border is what defines the country's, um, population, is what defines, uh... uh, the nature of that country.

That's... that's fundamental and has been throughout history.

And the other thing is the fiscal irresponsibility of that is... is devaluing the dollar and imposing enormous strains on our economy.

We're now paying more out of the federal Treasury just to rent the money we've already spent.

That is just to pay the interest on the national debt than we are on the national defense.

And once again, history's lesson is that countries that bankrupt themselves aren't around very long because before you can provide for the common defense or promote the general welfare, you need to be able to pay for them.

And the ability of our country to do so is coming into great question.

But the other priority... and the other priority, which is... is more, uh... uh, a local or regional priority than is a national is... is the issues I work on... on natural resources, which basically fire and water.

Uh, storage of water resources, uh, in wet years so we got them in dryers.

And of course the management of our... of our forests where we can match the density of the timber to the ability of the land to support it.

Scott: Uh, I'm curious, uh, part of your district includes Yosemite, which according to some, uh, Theodore Roosevelt called God's Cathedral.

And what do you consider to be the appropriate stewardship of natural resources and the environment in order to preserve them for generations to come?

Well, we have to bear in mind that excess timber is going to come up out of the forest one way or another.

It's either going to be carried out by us or nature is going to burn it up.

That's how nature gardens, um, and at the beginning of the last century, we formed the... the Federal Land Management Agencies and National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, with an eye to doing a little bit of gardening to remove the excess timber before it can choke off the forest and burn.

And we did an extraordinarily good job of that until we adopted environmental laws in the 1970s that have made the scientific management of our forests increasingly more time consuming and ultimately cost prohibitive.

And not a lot of it gets done anymore.

And the result is we now have morbidly overgrown forests and nature has returned to burn out the excess since we've stopped carrying it up.

Scott: Okay.

I want to...

I want to turn the conversation to foreign aid.

When... when -- you voted against the Ukraine Israel funding bill, correct?

Tom: No, I voted for it.

Scott: You voted for it.

Tom: In fact, I...

I spoke in favor of it.

Scott: Okay.

My apologies.

I'm...

I'm curious, though, within the Republican circles, there has been a decided change for where it is, that back in the Reagan era, voting against someone who was essentially attempting to contain or weaken Russia would have been vilified within the Republican Party.

It seems that the Republican Party, uh, there's a lot more sympathy for Putin today, as evidenced by... by media, you know, personalities like Tucker Carlson and others.

Take us inside the debates that are going on in the Republican caucus in the House as to where, you know, what... what are the arguments, pro and con?

Tom: Well - Scott: Go ahead.

Tom: The debate is not so much pro or anti-Russian.

The... the debate hinges on the fiscal ability of our country to support these expenditures and the priorities of defending another country's border when we're not defending our own.

Uh, I supported those measures and spoke in favor of them on the House floor.

One of the points I made was that, uh, yes, the profligate spending is destroying our country, but as Ronald Reagan said, defense is not a budget issue.

We spend what we need to spend to defend our country.

And it's true that the defense of... of Ukraine and Israel are one step removed from our own.

But it would be a good thing to keep it that way, uh, and providing them the arms that they need to carry on their fight is... uh, is critical to our own future.

You know, I again, don't -- I'm not unsympathetic to the concerns that we... We're out of money.

Uh, That's a very serious concern.

But the exigencies of the moment, I think, require a robust response, uh, to providing the arms and munitions that are necessary to to assist these countries in defending their borders.

I mean, history... History warns us.

History has so many warnings for us.

And another of them is that, um, what happens when aggression is allowed to go unchecked.

Churchill was absolutely convinced that if Hitler had been stopped in his first incursion, World War Two would never have happened.

Now, that's a lesson we need to heed.

Tom: And... And Congressman, we're going to have to leave it there.

Thank you so much for joining us.

And I hope you'll come back again.

Tom: Scott, I certainly will.

Enjoyed our conversation a lot and look forward to continuing it.

Scott: All right.

And that's our show.

Thanks to our guest and thanks to you for watching Studio Sacramento.

I'm Scott Syphax.

See you next time right here on KVIE.

♪♪♪ All episodes of Studio Sacramento Along with other KVIE programs are available to watch online at KVIE.ORG/VIDEO