Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ratcliffe).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2819 would extend the authorization of the Gold Star Mothers National Monument Foundation so that it can construct the Gold Star Mothers National Monument. The Gold Star Mothers of our Nation have sacrificed more on the altar of liberty than any among us. They have lost their children so that our children can be safe and sound and free. No words can begin to express the debt that we owe to them. While other families are celebrating Memorial Day with barbecues and frivolities, Gold Star families are gathered around the hallowed graves of their loved ones. The monument contemplated by this legislation is a small recognition of this. We do as much as we can to honor those who fall in defense of our country and its Constitution, and well we should. But we don't do nearly enough to honor those who they leave behind. Our fallen heroes come from our communities, from our high schools and churches, but most importantly, they come from the homes of loving families. When we as a nation lose a soldier and a patriot, these mothers lose a child. We must remember that for the families of these fallen heroes, every day is Memorial Day. Time, sadly, does not heal all wounds. The grief of our Gold Star Mothers is just as great today as the day when the casualty officer came to their door. Their loss is a heavy burden that they carry with them every single day of their lives. Nonetheless, they persevere to keep alive the spirit of their brave children. Legislation signed into law during the 112th Congress authorized the Gold Star Mothers National Monument Foundation to erect a monument on Federal lands in our Capital City that would honor mothers whose children gave that last full measure of devotion defending the United States as part of our armed services. The extended authorization will allow more time for the foundation to ensure that the monument's construction and completion can be brought to fruition by 2027. Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, as was just described, H.R. 560 would extend Northern Mariana Islands-only resident status for two groups of foreign nationals: individuals who came to Northern Mariana Islands as transitional workers in 2015, and individuals who have resided in the Northern Mariana Islands with an investor status. These individuals were excluded from a June 2019 law that allowed other classes of current Northern Mariana Islands workers to remain in the territory. If signed into law, H.R. 560 would allow approximately 3,000 additional foreign nationals to remain there long term. Now, bear in mind that the entire population of the Northern Mariana Islands is about 55,000, so just this addition of foreign nationals comprises about 5 percent of the entire population of the islands. While I appreciate the majority did take this bill through regular order, I am still disappointed that it has not been willing to work with the Department of Homeland Security or even wait for it to consider the impact of the bill before moving it to the floor. As the Department of Homeland Security is charged with managing programs that allow foreign nationals to work in the Northern Mariana Islands and elsewhere, I believe it is critical to have their views on something they will be charged with executing. Further, it is my continued hope that this body remains committed to promoting an American workforce rather than that of a foreign one. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This coming August 18 will mark the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which, after a century of earnest protest, extended the right to vote to all women. Forty years before that, suffragette Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote admiringly to Lucretia Mott. She was born in 1793 during President Washington's administration. At the time that Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote to her, she was in her 88th and final year of life. Mott was a Quaker, a major voice in the abolitionist movement, and later in the suffragette movement. Reflecting on her leadership in these just causes and the effect that it had on the entire Nation, Elizabeth Cady Stanton said: One who has lived 88 years, reflecting ever the sober virtues of the true wife and mother, the earnest reformer, the religious teacher, both in the schoolroom and Friends Meeting, must have exerted a strong influence for good on our young, impressionable Nation. When we remember that every word we utter, every act we perform, in all our waking hours, the very atmosphere, the combination all our faculties creates have their constant effect, on everyone who comes within the circle of our individual influence, and through them are wafted by word, by letter and by thought, to innumerable other circles beyond, when we try to estimate all this, we can in a measure appreciate the elevating influence on a nation of just one grand life. The Every Word We Utter Monument takes those words as a testament to the patient influence of so many who finally won adoption of the 19th Amendment, and with it, the fulfillment of American democracy. Those early suffragettes, like Mott and Stanton, never lived to see the culmination of their life's work, but the Every Word We Utter Monument will ensure that their example and achievement is memorialized in Washington, D.C., as are all of the great men and women and all of the great deeds that built this country, as Lincoln said, into the last best hope of mankind on this Earth. This memorial, which will be built without use of Federal funds, will serve as a lasting tribute to the brave and intelligent women who fought to secure voting rights for all Americans. Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, the question presented in this amendment comes down to this: Are we willing to protect our wilderness areas from catastrophic wildfire or are we content to stand by and watch them burn? The Wilderness Act of 1964 designates lands, ``for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.'' Now, that is important because nothing impairs the future use and enjoyment of our wilderness areas more than catastrophic fire. Our pledge in the Wilderness Act is to, ``provide for the protection of these areas.'' To provide for the protection of these areas. Look at America's wilderness areas today, it is heartbreaking. We have utterly failed to protect them from the scourge of wildfire that is now consuming them. An untended forest is no different than an untended garden. It will grow and grow until it chokes itself to death, and as it becomes morbidly overgrown, it falls victim to disease, pestilence, drought, and ultimately catastrophic wildfire that incinerates everything in its path. Once a forest is cremated, scrub brush takes over, and the forest won't regrow for a century or more, denying multiple generations of Americans the use and enjoyment that the Wilderness Act promises. And then the process of destruction will begin again. Why? Because we have made it all but impossible for forest managers to protect these habitats by removing excess timber before it can choke off the forest. Without special permitting, land managers are restricted to handsaws and axes, which consigns our wilderness forests to a policy of benign neglect even as they die before our eyes and await the inevitable wildfire. And even when the conflagration is ravaging the forest, permission to use mechanized equipment to fight the fires in wilderness areas is often difficult and time consuming. Today's Panetta amendment does nothing to change this dangerous situation. The 2019 Decker fire in Colorado began in the Sangre de Cristo wilderness where benign neglect had already decimated the forest. Eighty percent of the trees had already perished in the overcrowded conditions that made them vulnerable to pestilence and drought. And when the fire came, firefighters were held back due to the wilderness designation until the fire literally exploded. The same tale is told over and over again throughout our national lands. There are currently 111 million acres of Federal land designated as wilderness. That is about the size of California. This bill would add 1.5 million more. That is the size of Delaware and half of Rhode Island combined, much of it in areas where the Federal land managers are warning us that it is not suitable for wilderness designation and it is opposed by local governments because of the proximity to towns, homes, and property. My amendment simply allows for mechanized wildfire mitigation; that is, something more than handsaws and axes for the express and sole purpose of protecting life, property, or the environment in these newly created wilderness areas under this bill. This isn't a new policy. There are 29 instances where similar active management activities are already written into specific wilderness designations. This amendment would be the 30th time we have done so. When Republicans were in the majority, we set three objectives for our Federal lands: To restore public access to them; to restore good management to them; and to restore the Federal Government as a good neighbor to the communities directly impacted by them. This bill reverses those objectives set by House Republicans. Instead of restoring public access to public lands, the Democrats would restrict it. Instead of restoring good management to the public lands, the Democrats interfere with it. And instead of restoring the Federal Government as a good neighbor to those communities impacted by the public lands, the Democrats give those communities the finger. But mark these words: If these wilderness restrictions are imposed on acreage near people's homes, it is only a matter of time until the forest succumbs to neglect and the inevitable cycle of overcrowding, death, and fire. In the aftermath, people will have the right to ask why their elected representatives refused to protect them, their families, their homes and their forests when they had the chance to do so today to allow our Nation's foresters to do their jobs and care for this precious resource. At this moment my Democratic colleagues, remember, only you can prevent forest fires. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Yes, in its current form.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, once again, I would ask the gentlewoman that if what she says is true, that the lands in this bill meet the legal requirements, she has nothing to fear from my amendment. Only where the land does not meet legal requirements can a Secretary exempt it. One of the objectives we had set when we were in the majority was to restore public access to the public lands. These lands are set aside for the use, enjoyment, and recreation of the American people for all time. And that includes a wide range of activities, most of which are prohibited under wilderness or wild and scenic rivers designation. Such severe restrictions on public access should be used very carefully and sparingly. My amendment simply says: That the lands affected by this bill must meet the legal definitions contained in the Wilderness Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. It doesn't modify those acts; it affirms them. The despots of Great Britain early on set aside a third of the countryside as the ``King's royal forests,'' the private preserves of the royal court and their hangers-on. Commoners were severely restricted from these lands under draconian penalties. They were so resented by the British people that no fewer than five clauses in the Magna Carta were devoted to redressing these grievances. The American public lands were supposed to be exactly the opposite of the King's forests. These are lands set aside for the common enjoyment of the American people in all the many and varied outdoor activities and pursuits that they cherish. By ignoring the legal definitions of the Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts and scooping up and putting off-limits to most activities vast tracts of land held by and for the public, the Democrats make a mockery of these laws and undermine public support for them. We have heard a lot recently that no one is above the law. Well, that includes Congress. This amendment assures that the lands affected by this bill meet the criteria of the original laws that they invoke. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government owns just seven- tenths of 1 percent of the State of New York. It owns 1.1 percent of the State of Illinois. It owns just 1.8 percent of the entire State of Texas. In fact, the Federal Government only owns one-fourth of Washington, D.C. But then go farther west, and you will see the problem. The Federal Government owns and controls 62 percent of the State of Alaska, two- thirds of Utah, and four-fifths of the State of Nevada. It owns nearly half of my home State of California. In one county in my district, Alpine County, the Federal Government owns 96 percent. People from the East have no idea what that means. That is all lands that is off the local tax rolls. That is all land that carries increasingly severe restrictions on public use and access, which means it is generating very little economic activity for those regions. Often, Federal ownership means the Federal land-use policies are in direct contravention to the wishes of the local communities that are entangled with it. Now, when we Republicans held the majority, one of our Federal lands objectives was to restore the Federal Government as a good neighbor to those communities directly impacted by the Federal lands. The bill before us does exactly the opposite. This bill adds 1\1/2\ million acres of Federal land to wilderness restrictions, meaning you can't even bring a stroller on these lands. This land grab is strongly opposed by the local communities it would directly affect. The Mesa County commission and Garfield County, Colorado, oppose this bill because of concerns it will further restrict public access and increase the risk of fire. The Congressman representing those areas opposes the legislation. Mr. Chair, 80 percent of Del Norte County in California is already owned by the State and Federal Governments, and their board of supervisors is protesting the further restriction of public access to these lands, noting that these lands don't even meet wilderness criteria. Trinity County has also formally opposed the bill, yet we are plowing ahead anyway. The Monrovia City Council protests the enormous economic burdens this bill would place on their city. So, too, the Grays Harbor County Commission and the city councils of Aberdeen and Cosmopolis in Washington State beg us not to impose these restrictions on their communities, and I could go on. Representing the Sierra Nevada of California, I can tell you there are no more fierce or knowledgeable guardians of our forests than the people who live among them. My amendment simply restores the good neighbor policy the Republicans practiced for many years. It simply provides that wilderness restrictions cannot be imposed until the county on which the land is located approves of them. Mr. Chair, I would ask my Democratic colleagues to show a little humility and a little mercy in exercising their power by listening to the people most affected by their decisions and adopt this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would simply ask the gentlewoman, if it is true that local people affected by this bill actually support it, then what does she have to fear from getting their approval? Her opposition to this amendment puts the lie to her claim that the local people support it and tells us she doesn't believe her own rhetoric. Gifford Pinchot, the father of the U.S. Forest Service, propounded maxims for good behavior by foresters. He said, among other things: A public official is there to serve the public and not run them. Public support of acts affecting public rights is absolutely required. It is more trouble to consult the public than to ignore them, but that is what you were hired to do. Get rid of an attitude of personal arrogance or pride of attainment of superior knowledge. Mr. Chairman, this bill turns these maxims upside down. It says to local residents: We know what's best for you and your communities; your opinions are unimportant to us, your wishes are irrelevant, and your voices are unheard. We're in charge and we'll damn well do as we please. I ask my Democratic colleagues to step back and consider how you would react to a government that takes such an attitude as that. My amendment simply asks the people and trusts the people. If we are still a government of, by, and for the people, that is the least we can do. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, when the Republicans were in the majority, we set three overarching objectives for our Federal lands policy: to restore public access to the public lands, to restore good management to the public lands, and to restore the Federal Government as a good neighbor to those communities impacted by the public lands. This bill is the very opposite of these three policies. The purpose of America's public lands was to set aside our most beautiful tracts, in the words of the original Yosemite Charter, ``for public use, resort, and recreation . . . for all time.'' The bill before us does exactly the opposite: It imposes severe restrictions on the public's use of 2.5 million acres of their own lands; 1.5 million acres would be put off limits to such innocent things as mountain bikes and strollers; and it would remove roads to reach campsites or even allow emergency equipment to access. It also designates 843 additional miles of our rivers as wild and scenic. Does anybody think that sounds good? I can tell my colleagues that that designation on the Merced River in my district has been used to close many traditional tourist amenities at Yosemite Park, including swimming pools, raft and bike rentals, horseback riding stables, and ice skating and lodging facilities. ``Public use, resort, and recreation'' becomes ``Look, but don't touch.'' The health and vitality of our forests depends on active scientific forest management. That means carefully tending our forests to protect them from morbid overcrowding, which, in turn, makes them vulnerable to disease, pestilence, drought, and, ultimately, catastrophic wildfire. Excess timber comes out of the forest in one of two ways: It is either burned out or it is carried out. This bill makes good forest management impossible by forbidding our foresters from using their science to protect and groom and care for our forests by assuring that trees have room to grow strong. Finally, this bill ignores and insults the communities directly affected by this massive Federal land grab. In case after case, local elected officials, local governments, local fire districts, and local residents in the nearby communities have formally, vigorously, and vocally protested the draconian restrictions imposed by this measure because they imperil public safety from fire, and they do wanton harm to the local economies. This bill reverses the three objectives set by House Republicans: Instead of restoring public access to public lands, the Democrats restrict and deny it; Instead of restoring good management to the public lands, the Democrats forbid it; Instead of restoring the Federal Government as a good neighbor to those communities impacted by the public lands, the Democrats give those communities the finger. What Obama said about elections having consequences, here it is in real life.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, when the Wilderness Act was adopted in 1964, it designated about 9 million acres; that is a little larger than the State of Maryland. Over the years, that has ballooned to 111 million acres, a land area the size of California. This bill adds 1\1/ 2\ million acres more. That is the size of Delaware and half of Rhode Island combined. The restrictions in the wilderness areas are severe. You can't bring a bicycle on these lands. You can't drive to a campsite. The Wilderness Act provides for wilderness designation only for those lands that are--and listen to this carefully--``an area where the Earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain'' and ``an area of underdeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.'' Well, much of the land in this bill doesn't begin to meet these criteria. The Department of the Interior, and the local communities directly affected by this bill, are warning us that this new Federal land grab includes acreage on which there are buildings and roads, grazing and off-road vehicle trails, bicycle trails, communication towers, small businesses, mines and oil wells. Moreover, motorized and mechanized firefighting and fire suppression equipment is currently allowed on these lands but would be severely restricted if the land is designated as wilderness. All you can use in a wilderness area, without special permission, is a handsaw, a shovel, and an axe to fight a fire. To include such acreage under the Wilderness Act makes a mockery of its original intent and poses a direct threat to the tourism, livelihoods, jobs, safety, and quality of life of the communities adjacent to them. Abraham Lincoln once told of the farmer who said: ``I ain't greedy for land. All I want is what's next to mine.'' That appears to be the new motto of the Democrats, and it is having a devastating impact on our mountain and rural communities. The amendment I offer simply provides that the relevant Department Secretary, either Agriculture or Interior, can exempt those lands contained in this bill that do not meet the legal requirements of the Wilderness Act or the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, restoring the original intent of these laws. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, lost amidst the tumult of the last couple of weeks was the quiet passing of an outspoken leader of California, H.L. ``Bill'' Richardson. H.L., as he was known to his friends, arrived in the California State Senate with the freshman class of 1966, part of the Reagan landslide that year. For every one of the 22 years he served in the Senate, H.L. was a force to be reckoned with. He served for many years in the Republican leadership, but he was never ever a political insider. His enormous influence inside the senate stemmed from the fact that he never joined that club; he never lost sight of the people who elected him. And he not only worked tirelessly to serve them inside the capitol, he worked even harder to organize, inform, and mobilize them outside the capitol. He founded a multitude of advocacy groups to empower the millions of Californians who believed in individual liberty and economic freedom. He started the Free Market Political Action Committee to support free market principles and the candidates who embraced them, and it became the inspiration and prototype of groups like the Club for Growth and Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks today. In the 1970's, when Jerry Brown first came to power and appointed radical leftists to the California courts, H.L. founded the Law and Order Campaign Committee, which became the driving force between the historic recall of Chief Justice Rose Bird and two of her associates on the California Supreme Court. That organization went on for many years to restore common sense to the California courts and criminal justice system, including pressing the legislature to restore the death penalty over Jerry Brown's veto. His passion for the Second Amendment was his most defining cause. He founded Gun Owners of California to fight the growing movement in California to disarm law-abiding citizens, and its success not only beat back Proposition 15, a 1982 initiative to ban handguns in California, it generated so many new Second Amendment voters in that election to put George Deukmejian over the top by a tiny margin of victory over Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley in that Governor's race that year. Gun Owners of California continues its good work to this day, as does its spin-off, Gun Owners of America. H.L. had a wicked sense of humor, and it was keenest when bursting bubbles of political pomposity. One of his half dozen published books, still required reading in some college classes, is titled, ``What Makes You Think We Read the Bills?'' His book, ``Confrontational Politics,'' offers a civilized, but no less resolute, conservative response to Saul Alinsky's ``Rules for Radicals.'' California, once called ``The Golden State,'' is today drawing more and more attention as a slow-moving train wreck. The radical left has now dominated the State's institutions for more than 20 years, and California is showing all of the political, social, and economic pathologies that accompany leftist governance: failing schools; rising crime; chronic traffic congestion; skyrocketing costs of housing, energy, and water; rampant homelessness; oppressive regulations; the highest effective poverty rate in the Nation; and a population now fleeing to other States. Senator H.L. Richardson held back that tide for nearly 30 years. He was a mighty seawall that protected California from the left, giving one final generation of Californians the joy of living in the most prosperous and beautiful State in the Nation. But, as age took its toll, his influence waned, the left steadily advanced, and none of us whom he inspired to follow him has been able to stop it. On January 13, H.L. Richardson passed away at the age of 92, and with him passed the golden California of freedom, opportunity, and prosperity that he fought so hard, so long, and so effectively to preserve. Perhaps the day will come when California will see a rebirth of freedom, and on that day, H.L.'s wisdom, courage, and leadership will show that generation the way back. We can hasten that day by remembering and celebrating his life, his lessons, and his achievements.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise along with my colleague, Representative Doug LaMalfa, to recognize Einar Maisch for his 34 years of service at the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA). Einar's career as a civil engineer in the greater Sacramento area began immediately after his graduation from California State University, Sacramento. After stints at two local engineering firms, Einar joined PCWA in 1985, and his rapid ascension since then highlights his profound impact in serving the needs of the community. Water resiliency and infrastructure are among the most pressing needs in our region, and Einar has never shied away from tackling the most challenging projects that certainly could not have been completed without his hard work and devotion. Beginning his tenure at PCWA as a Senior Civil Engineer, Einar went on to serve as the Agency's Director of Strategic Affairs for fifteen years. His responsibilities in engaging in external matters included his participation in the Sacramento Area Water Forum and managing several large-scale water infrastructure projects critical to the region. These include the Penryn/Lincoln pipeline project, the expansion of the Foothill Water Treatment Plant, and the Stanford Ranch project, just to name a few. Einar provided strategic planning, management, and oversight for PCWA's Cross-Basin Pipeline Project, L.L. Anderson Dam spillway modification project, American River Pump Station project, and relicensing of the Middle Fork American River Project, where he negotiated a new power sale contract and the renewal of PCWA's water supply contracts. All of this work has greatly expanded the Agency's status in the California energy market. This extensive list of accomplishment led to him being selected as PCWA's General Manager in 2015, a role he has thrived in over the past five years. As General Manager, he worked to ensure PCWA's long-term viability as the local leader in water rights and economic prosperity by overseeing a clear and transparent budget process, increasing customer accessibility to the Agency, and expanding its regional and national influence on water issues. Throughout this long tenure, Einar has always prioritized the needs and interests of the customers and community. Einar is now retiring after nearly 35 years of service at the Agency, where he took tremendous pride in serving the people of Placer County. His work will leave a lasting impact on water planning, resiliency, and management in Northern California for decades to come, and Representative LaMalfa and I could not be more thankful for all Einar has done. He will now be able to spend much more time traveling, playing golf, and spending time with his wife Susan, his son, daughter, stepdaughter, and two grandsons. We wish him the best of luck in his much-deserved retirement.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, this amendment forbids the President from taking action that he can't take anyway. With or without this amendment, the President cannot attack Iran, or any country, without Congressional authorization unless it attacks us. And even then, his powers are limited to ordering defensive actions unless Congress acts. The attack on Soleimani in Iraq was against an enemy combatant in a war zone that was authorized by Congress. It was not an attack on Iran. The only practical effect of this amendment is to send a message of irresolution to our enemies, and to take a cheap shot at the President by implying he would do something he cannot do. Now, the Lee amendment, coming next, repeals the AUMF that Congress adopted when it foolishly authorized the Iraq war in 2002. Under our Constitution, only Congress can start a war. But after that, only the President can wage it or conduct the negotiations to end it. You cannot unring a bell, and you cannot unstart a war. Once unleashed, the war-making authority continues until it is terminated by treaty or agreement. So here are the lessons of this whole sorry saga in Iraq. Congress should declare war only when our country is attacked. When we declare war, we must put the full resources, resolve, attention, fury, and might of this Nation behind it, and see it through as quickly and decisively as possible. And most of all, having handed the President that power, and having sent our troops into battle, Congress must stand behind its decision, no matter how long or hard that road may be.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, in 2016, President Obama sent $1.7 billion of untraceable cash on shrink-wrapped cargo pallets to the regime in Iran. The Iranian expatriates in my district reported that immediately following this shameful spectacle, the Iranian Guard expanded dramatically and began a brutal round of repression that cost thousands of innocent Iranians their lives. Thankfully, President Trump has reversed these destructive policies of appeasement. The renewal of sanctions against Iran is again bringing economic pressure on the regime and causing European nations to reconsider their ties with that tyranny. Iran is one of the oldest and greatest civilizations in history, yet it has been suppressed and plundered by a clique of theocratic thugs who comprise the illegitimate Iranian Government. This resolution is an important gesture, but it is empty and idle without action. We need to support the freedom-fighting organizations operating within Iran with the same financial resources that Obama sent to their oppressors. I challenge the House majority to do so.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, due to a family medical emergency, I was unable to be in Washington for the week of January 13. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 19, YEA on Roll Call No. 20, NAY on Roll Call No. 21 and NAY on Roll Call No. 22.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, due to a family medical emergency, I was unable to be in Washington for the week of January 13. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 14, NAY on Roll Call No. 15, NAY on Roll Call No. 16, NAY on Roll Call No. 17 and NAY on Roll Call No. 18.