[House Hearing, 116 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] MARKUP OF H.R. 3501, H.Res. 326, H.Res. 246, H.R. 1850, H.R. 1837, H.Res. 138, H.Con.Res 32, H.Res. 442, H.R. 2097, AND H.Res. 127 ======================================================================= MARKUP BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ July 17, 2019 __________ Serial No. 116-56 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http:// docs.house.gov, or http://www.govinfo.gov __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 37-050PDF WASHINGTON : 2019 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York Member ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida JOE WILSON, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts TED S. YOHO, Florida DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois AMI BERA, California LEE ZELDIN, New York JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin DINA TITUS, Nevada ANN WAGNER, Missouri ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York BRIAN MAST, Florida TED LIEU, California FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania DEAN PHILLPS, Minnesota JOHN CURTIS, Utah ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota KEN BUCK, Colorado COLIN ALLRED, Texas RON WRIGHT, Texas ANDY LEVIN, Michigan GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania GREG PENCE, Indiana TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey STEVE WATKINS, Kansas DAVID TRONE, Maryland MIKE GUEST, Mississippi JIM COSTA, California JUAN VARGAS, California VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas Jason Steinbaum, Democrat Staff Director Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- Page TEXT OF H.R. 3501 H.R. 3501........................................................ 3 MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD Article submitted for the record from Representative Chabot...... 22 ADDITIONAL TEXT AND AMENDMENTS FOR H.R. 3501 AND H.RES. 326 Amendment to H.R. 3501 offered by Mr. Burchett................... 26 Amendment to H.R. 3501 offered by Mr. Perry...................... 33 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.Res. 326 offered by Ms. Bass....................................................... 40 BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, AND AMENDMENTS EN BLOC Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.Res. 246 offered by Mr. Engel...................................................... 52 Amendment to H.Res. 246 offered by Mr. Zeldin.................... 56 H.R. 1850........................................................ 58 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1837 offered by Mr. Deutch..................................................... 84 H.Res. 138....................................................... 123 Amendment to H.Res. 138 offered by Mr. Wilson.................... 126 H.Con. Res. 32................................................... 128 H.Res. 442....................................................... 133 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.Res. 442 offered by Mr. Malinowski................................................. 140 H.R. 2097........................................................ H.Res. 127....................................................... 151 APPENDIX Hearing Notice................................................... 173 Hearing Minutes.................................................. 175 Hearing Attendance............................................... 176 Markup Summary................................................... 177 MARKUP OF H.R. 3501, H.Res. 326, H.Res. 246, H.R. 1850, H.R. 1837, H.Res. 138, H.Con.Res 32, H.Res. 442, H.R. 2097, AND H.Res. 127 Wednesday, July 17, 2019 House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eliot Engel (chairman of the committee) presiding. Chairman Engel [presiding]. The committee will come to order. Pursuant to notice, we meet today to mark up 10 measures. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any point. Pursuant to Committee Rule 4, the chair announces that the chair may postpone further proceedings on approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment. Without objection, all members may have 5 days to submit statements or extraneous materials on today's business. The text of the 10 noticed measures was circulated in advance to offices, and members were also notified yesterday that we intend to first consider H.R. 3501, the Safeguard our Elections and Combat Unlawful Interference in our Democracy Act. And this will be followed by the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.Res. 326, expressing the sense of the House regarding United States' efforts to resolve the Israeli- Palestinian conflict through a negotiated two-State solution. And finally, we will move on to consider the eight remaining measures en bloc, which consist of: The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.Res. 246, opposing efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel and the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement targeting Israeli, with a Zeldin amendment; H.R. 1850, the Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act of 2019; The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1837, the United States-Israel Cooperation Enhancement and Regional Security Act; H.Res. 138, expressing support for addressing the Arab- Israeli conflict in a concurrent track with the Israeli- Palestinian peace process and commending Arab and Muslim- majority States that have improved bilateral relations with Israel, with a Wilson amendment; H.Con.Res 32, expressing the sense of Congress regarding the execution-style murders of United States citizens Ylli, Agron, and Mehmet Bytyqi in the Republic of Serbia in July 1999; H.Res. 442, observing 10 years since the war in Sri Lanka ended on May 18, 2009, commemorating the lives lost and expressing support for transitional justice, reconciliation, reconstruction, reparation, and reform in Sri Lanka which is necessary to ensure a lasting peace, with a Malinowski amendment in the nature of a substitute; H.R. 2097, Legacies of War Recognition and Unexploded Ordnance Removal Act, And H.Res. 127, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the importance and vitality of the United States alliances with Japan and the Republic of Korea and our trilateral cooperation in the pursuit of shared interests. Pursuant to notice, for purposes of markup, I now call up H.R. 3501, the Safeguard our Elections and Combat Unlawful Interference in our Democracy Act. The clerk will report the bill. Ms. Stiles. ``H.R. 3501, to expose and deter unlawful and subversive foreign interference in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the''---- Chairman Engel. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill shall be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. [The bill H.R. 3501 follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Engel. At this time, I recognize myself to speak on the legislation. I will keep my remarks brief. Shortly after the 2016 election, when we learned more about Russia putting its thumb on the scale to help Donald Trump's campaign, Mr. Connolly and I introduced this legislation to punish and deter foreign interference in an American election. It is simple. Going back to 2015 and extending into the future, if a foreign individual or entity is found to have interfered with an American election, they would be subject to sanctions, freezing any assets on American soil, visa denials to keep them out of the country. The message is clear: if you meddle with an American election from overseas, there are going to be consequences. It seems pretty straightforward to me, but I am disappointed that our friends on the other side of the aisle have so far not been willing to support the measure. The reason, we have been told--and this goes back a few years--is, well, they do not think it should be retroactive. I beg to disagree. I think not enough has been done to hold accountable those who stuck their noses in our elections in 2016. ``We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election.'' And let me quote that again because it is words of the United States intelligence community. Quote: ``We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election.'' Special Counsel Robert Mueller said, quote, ``The Russian government interfered in the 2016 Presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.'' That is a quote from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. It is true the administration imposed some sanctions, but the response so far simply does not fit the crime. And every time the President is pressed on the issue, he shrugs it off. Just look at the way he acted a few weeks ago, sitting next to Putin at the G20. He does not take the problem seriously. So, we have to. To be honest, the notion that we should not punish a foreigner who interfered in our election is bizarre and contrary to the need to keep American elections sacrosanct. Because if we do not look backward, if we just let Russia off the hook for what they did in 2016, what is going to stop them or others from trying the same thing again? That is why this bill needs to go back to the last election, not just look into the future. If you are interested in protecting American democracy, if we want to send a message to Putin and his cronies that our elections are sacrosanct, I cannot imagine why we would oppose this bill. Because as we get closer and closer to the next election, the American people are going to want to know, did you do everything in your power to make sure our election is safe? Did you do everything you could to guarantee that the American people are choosing their leaders, and not some foreign power picking our leaders? And if we do not move this bill forward, we will not have done enough and we certainly will not have done everything in our power, in my opinion. So, I urge my colleagues to vote yes, all of my colleagues. I thank Mr. Connolly for working with me on this measure. And now, I will recognize our ranking member, Mr. McCaul of Texas, for any remarks he might have. Mr. McCaul. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, our committee will mark up 10 measures. I would like to first focus on a few of the good, bipartisan bills and resolutions that committee Republicans and Democrats have worked on together. I fully support the Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act, introduced by Mr. Mast, which would impose sanctions on those like Iran who provide support to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Hamas is a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization that has killed more than 400 Israelis and 25 American citizens since 1993. Earlier this year, Hamas launched more than 600 rockets into Israel in a single weekend, resulting in four civilian casualties, including an American citizen. This legislation requires the administration to sanction any individuals determined to support Hamas. If you support a terrorist group that kills civilians, then you should be subject to U.S. sanctions. It is just that simple. I would also like to thank my colleagues Mr. Deutch and Mr. Wilson for introducing the United States-Israel Cooperation Enhancement and Regional Security Act. This is a comprehensive, bipartisan bill that updates our civil and security cooperation with Israel. Specifically, it reauthorizes our security assistance to Israel and updates existing law to ensure we can quickly supply Israel with defense articles in an emergency. We will also be considering a bipartisan resolution, introduced by Representatives Schneider and Zeldin, opposing efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel and condemning the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, or BDS, Movement. The BDS Movement unfairly targets Israel with economic, cultural, and academic boycotts. I am proud to support this measure, although I would have preferred that the committee consider my comprehensive bill, H.R. 336, which includes actual policy provisions to help the United States combat BDS, in addition to sanctions on the side and assistance for Israel and Jordan. While over 171 Democrats support the resolution we are considering today, none have signed the discharge petition to bring my bill to the floor for a vote. I would encourage any colleagues that would be interested to go one step further in support of Israel and sign the petition. Mr. Chairman, I am also disappointed that, while we are considering many bipartisan measures here today, we are also considering House Resolution 326, a one-sided take on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It goes out of its way to rebut the current administration's nascent peace efforts and blames Israel for undermining the peace process. It does not mention the Palestinian Authority's practice of paying individuals who commit acts of terrorism. It adds nothing positive to the conversation. And what it does do is antagonize one of our closest partners while undermining this administration's ongoing efforts. And therefore, I must oppose that resolution. Last, I am concerned with the Safeguard our Elections and Combat Unlawful Interference in our Democracy Act. Let me begin by saying I want to pit my record on being tough on Russia against anyone's in Congress. I voted for CAATSA, which authorizes sanctions for the 2016 interference. I voted against the de-listing of Russia earlier this year. But this bill needs to be refined. As written, this legislation is more about politics than policy, and it seems to ignore the substantial taken by both Congress and the administration, not to mention the millions of dollars spent investigating the Russian interference. The administration has sanctioned 18 people under CAATSA, and the Department of Justice secured indictments during the Mueller probe for 12 Russian nationals, all for attempted interference in the 2016 election. In fact, for the past 3 years, the American people have heard more about Russian meddling in our 2016 elections, more than any other issue out of Washington. To require another review of that action now would redirect resources for political purposes that should be used to prevent these types of attacks in the future. So, I urge my colleagues to support the Burchett amendment, so that we can have forelooking, bipartisan bill that will authorize action against those who attempt to interfere in future Federal elections. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Chairman Engel. The gentleman yields back. I am aware of only one amendment to this measure. Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman. Chairman Engel. Mr. Connolly. Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair. I would like to just address the bill you and I have introduced now in three Congresses. Chairman Engel and I first introduced this bill in December 2016, following broad consensus among the U.S. intelligence community that Russia directed a deliberate effort to interfere with the U.S. election process in 2016. We reintroduced it in 2017, after the U.S. intelligence community published an unclassified report detailed an unprecedented, deliberate, and multifaceted campaign by Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. I do not know whether the ranking member thinks they were playing politics, but that was their finding in an unclassified report. And we reintroduced it in this Congress for the third time, after the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller's report concluded, and I quote from Robert Mueller's report, ``The Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome through hacking and distributing stolen information in 2016.'' Russia's unprecedented interference in the 2016 Presidential election should trouble every American and every member of this committee. One of our most cherished institutions, democratic elections free of foreign interference, was attacked. And Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats has confirmed--by the way, the former Republican Senator from Indiana, hardly a liberal Democrat playing politics--he confirmed that foreign actors, including Russia, continued to interfere during the 2018 midterm elections and, quote, ``are already looking to the 2020 elections as an opportunity to advance their interests.'' Santayana said, if we do not learn the past, we are condemned to repeat the mistakes of that time. We have to acknowledge what happened in 2016. To support the amendment that is going to be offered by Mr. Burchett is essentially to whitewash history. It is to close our eyes and ears and pretend that did not happen and our only concern is prospective. That is a false reading of history. In fact, it is intellectually dishonest if we agree to it. None of us like our motives questioned. And I want to say to my friend, the ranking member, my motive is to protect the integrity of the American electoral system. It is not to play politics. That is why we have introduced this bill three times. In the last Congress, the then-chairman of this committee made an offer both to Mr. Engel and myself. He said, we will mark up your bill, whole and entire, on one condition: you drop all reference to 2016. As a matter of principle, we refused. We felt that pretending 2016 did not happen, frankly, tainted the entirety of the bill. The integrity of our election process is at stake, and this committee has yet to speak to it, even though it was a foreign player, an adversary, Vladimir Putin's Russia, that was the agent, confirmed by our intelligence community. So, I urge my colleagues not only to support the bill as submitted by the chairman and myself, finally after three Congresses, but also to resist this amendment that rewrites history. I yield back. Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. Does any other member wish to be recognized or speak on the measure or would offer an amendment? Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chairman? Chairman Engel. Yes, Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word. Chairman Engel. Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have markups in three committees, this committee, Judiciary going on right now, and then, I am ranking member on Small Business and we have a markup going on there. So, I would like to comment briefly on this and a couple of other bills. First, I would like to focus on the pro-Israel legislation. Israel is a friend and ally, the foremost democracy in the Middle East and a critical partner on so many issues from Iran to economic issues like technology. Israel is in a tough neighborhood, as we all know, and we ought to do whatever we can to support their security and advance our shared interests. That is why I am a cosponsor, along with Mr. Deutch and Mr. Wilson, on H.R. 1837. And not only does it codify the MOU between our two nations to help maintain Israel's qualitative military edge, something the Senate, by the way, dropped the bill in the last Congress, but it includes several other cooperative programs to strengthen our bilateral relationship. Likewise, I am an original cosponsor on Mr. Mast's H.R. 1850, which would sanction Hamas for its truly deplorable terrorist attacks that are a constant source of fear for Israeli citizens and which prevents Gaza from ever being a normal place. I would also like to turn to BDS. I am glad that we are finally marking up a measure on BDS, H.Res. 246, and I want to thank Mr. Schneider and Zeldin for their work on this important issue. I could go into that, but I will move on to something else. It is fundamentally counterproductive in resolving the differences between Israel and its neighbors because--excuse me. Relative to the one-State solution bill, we are in opposition to that. Antisemitism has no place in America, in Congress, or in this committee. That is why it is well past time that we passed a measure condemning BDS. And I would urge my colleagues to support that resolution. In addition to the bills on Israel, I would like to briefly touch on H.Res. 127, which affirms the important trilateral cooperation between the U.S., Japan, and South Korea. I want to thank Mr. Engel and Ranking Member McCaul for their work on that. As a former chairman of the Asia-Pacific Subcommittee and having visited both countries a number of times, I believe that cooperation between us is critical to peace in the Indo-Pacific and counterbalancing China's ambitions. Unfortunately, relations between Japan and South Korea keep getting worse over World War II grievances. While they have sensitive issues between them, if they cannot mend their partnership, China will be the only winner. This point was made very well in an article in the South China Morning Post last week titled, ``How China Can Win a Trade War Between Japan and South Korea,'' and I would ask unanimous consent that that article be included in the record. Chairman Engel. Yes, without objection. [The information referred to follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Chabot. And I yield back my time at this point, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Kinzinger. Mr. Chairman, point of inquiry? Mr. Chairman? Chairman Engel. Yes. Mr. Kinzinger. Are we on opening statements or are---- Chairman Engel. No. Mr. Kinzinger [continuing]. We considering the bill? Chairman Engel. We are going to do the bill. Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you. Chairman Engel. I let Mr. Chabot make his statement because he had to go, but we are going to go back to the bill. Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Engel. OK. Does any member wish to be recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment to the Secure Democracy Act? Mr. Burchett. Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the committee. The amendment I offer today would ensure that the penalties prescribed in this bill are forward-looking instead of retreading the ground of the 2016 election, which has already-- -- Chairman Engel. OK. Would the gentleman suspend? I am sorry. Let me make sure that the clerk designates the amendment. Ms. Stiles. ``Burchett Amendment No. 1. Insert after Section 1 the following: Section 2, Finding.'' Chairman Engel. Without objection, further reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. [The amendment of Mr. Burchett follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Engel. A point of order is reserved. And Mr. Burchett. Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congress passed, and President Trump signed, the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act in 2017. Since that time, the administration has sanctioned 18 individuals for attempted interference in the 2016 Presidential election under that law. Furthermore, the Department of Justice has secured criminal indictments of 12 Russian nationals for election interference in the course of the Mueller probe. I agree with the intelligence community that Russia attempted to alter the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election. Such behavior is unacceptable and we should always take strong action when the foundation of our democratic system of government, the right to vote, is threatened by our adversaries. In this case, we have done just that. However, the bill before us, absent any context, makes it appear that neither Congress nor the administration has done anything to address this behavior, when, in fact, a law has already been enacted and implemented, and to do exactly what the legislation purports to do. Focusing on the 2016 election I think is more about political points than actual results. Passing this bill as is sends a message to the career civil servants in Treasury, the lawyers and investigators at the Department of Justice, and to the administration that your work is insufficient and halfhearted. And given the volume of sanctions and indictments that have resulted from this hard work, that is a message I am unwilling to send. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, so that our resources can be used to focus on and to address any potential threat of our elections, and not waste the people's money for political gain. And, in conclusion, I would tell you, I think that if this were actually whitewashing, as was described by my colleague and friend across the aisle, that this was whitewashing history, then why do not we say whose watch it was actually under and who was in the White House at that time, Mr. Chairman? Thank you very much for your time, and I yield the rest of my time back. Thank you. Chairman Engel. I thank the gentleman. I will first recognize myself to speak on this amendment briefly. I must respectfully oppose what my friend has offered here. The purpose of this legislation is not to rehash the last Presidential election. That is not why we wrote it to reach back to 2015. This is a question of whether enough has been done to respond to the attack on our democracy, and in my view the answer is clearly no. This is no small matter. A hostile foreign government has no business messing with our elections, period. I do not care if they are doing it to help Republicans or Democrats; I do not want them interfering. And the Trump Administration's actions to push back, in my opinion, have been inadequate. They drafted an Executive Order that could have made a difference, but never used it. In fact, the language in this bill mirrors that Executive Order. And frankly, the President seems to be living in the past. He continues to deny that Russia was responsible for attacking our democracy. He sides with Vladimir Putin over our own intelligence community. And how can we possibly expect this measure to serve as a deterrent if we let the people who did it the first time off scot-free? The President seems like he may welcome another round of interference. By refusing to say whether he would report foreign interference to the FBI, he has opened the door to another attack. I thought that he and Putin at the G20--I just cringed when I watched what was happening. So, if the executive branch will not do the job, we have to. And that is why it is essential that this bill, in my opinion, look backward as well as forward. I oppose my friend's amendment and I urge all members to do the same. Do any other members wish to be recognized to speak on this amendment? Mr. Kinzinger. Mr. Chairman. Chairman Engel. Mr. Kinzinger. Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Engel. Five minutes. Mr. Kinzinger. While I will probably, more than likely, vote with my colleagues on this side of the aisle on every following thing, I just respectfully say that I will oppose the gentleman's substitute amendment and support the underlying bill. I have no doubt that this bill is largely for messaging, and that does bother me. But I think it is correct that Russia attempted to undermine our democracy, that not enough has been done to recognize and pay for that, and that we have to send, as a Nation, as Republicans and Democrats, a very strong message that, even if we found everybody involved in the 2016 election, which I do not think we have, but even if we have, this committee is sending a message that we will continue to watch for signs of anybody who had any involvement up to that point, as well as anybody that will have involvement after. Now the thing that I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is resist the temptation to make this about politics, and let's do our best to make this about our country. Because the best thing that Russia can do is not to meet us on the battlefield, not to create more nuclear weapons, but to undermine the very foundation of democracy and the very belief that your vote counts in an election. Because when people feel their vote does not count, whether it is through interference, through influence, through hacking, if you feel that way, you lose faith in the institution of Congress; you lose faith in the institution of the presidency, and you lose faith in your government. And that faith in the government is the only thing, Mr. Chairman, that makes democracy work. It is the only thing. Without it, this is just a bunch of people sitting around and talking, and we have nobody back home looking at us for guidance or leadership because they do not trust us; they do not believe us, and they are not even sure if we won the election. So, this is a difficult position for me on this, and I appreciate Mr. Burchett's amendment. I know where his heart is. I know he means well on this, and I know all my colleagues do, too. But I feel like we have not done enough to recognize the reality of what exists, and the more messages we can send, the stronger and the more bipartisan we can send those messages, the more that we prevent this from happening again in the future. Because, to my Republican friends, it is going to happen against us. To my Democratic friends, it is going to happen against you. And when some weird third party comes along, it is going to happen against them. And it is going to go on for the rest of American times, for the rest of our future history, unless we get a hold of this. And I think now is the moment to do that. So, with a heavy heart, I say I will oppose my friend's amendment, and I will support the underlying bill. Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield? Mr. Kinzinger. I will. Mr. Connolly. I want to salute the gentleman from Illinois. I know it is not easy. And I also want to give him assurance, because I co-wrote this bill. This comes from a deep commitment to our country that is bipartisan. It is not about positioning or messaging, I give him my word. This is about protecting our country. And this is the first time, I say to my friend, that this committee in 3 years has spoken about this issue directly. And it is aimed at Russia and other would-be interferers with our election process. That is the intent, no other. And I salute my friend for his courage and conviction. I yield back to him. Mr. Kinzinger. And I yield back my time. Thank you. Chairman Engel. OK. Thank you. Do any other members seek recognition? Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support H.R. 3501. The new cold war is not about the Berlin Wall, although our Nation, the White House is trying to build a wall somewhere else. It is not about missiles or the armed race necessarily, although we are concerned about countries that are not our friends developing nuclear arsenals. The new cold war is about cybersecurity, fundamentally about, in this particular debate, about how Russia, as per Volume I of the Mueller report, interferes in our electoral system. This is critical because the basis of our democracy, the deep-rooted basis of our democracy is our electoral system, where my vote is just as equal as anybody's votes here in this audience. And to have a foreign country which has ill will against America interfere, deliberately, pre-meditatively, maliciously interfere in our electoral process constitutes a clear and present danger. And this is the new cold war. It is cyber-driven. This bill I think goes a long way to answer to that, not just to Russia, but any future nation, China, anybody that will choose to engage in this kind of action. And so, I support it. I will not vote for this amendment. I would like to see the content of the original bill adopted into law. And I want to thank, Mr. Chairman, the authors and the cosponsors. I am a current cosponsor of the bill, and I will be voting in the affirmative. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Engel. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Do other members seek recognition? Mr.--is that Perry?--yes, Mr. Perry, 5 minutes. Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, I support the gentleman from Tennessee's amendment, but I do want to applaud and acknowledge the interest on the other side for finally recognizing--the Russians have been meddling in the United States, in our democracy, since the 1930's, if not before. They have been meddling, and it has been ignored by this town over and over again. Republicans have always been on the side of stopping the communists, the socialists, and their meddling in the United States, whether it is Harry Hopkins in the Roosevelt White House, John Service heading to China and choosing Mao Zedong over Chiang Chai-Shek, you name it, whether it was the Venona transcripts that literally proved that everything--whether you liked his methods or not--that a great Senator tried to point out the communist interference in our government. It is high time, and I do want to recognize and acknowledge and thank the other party, our gentle friends, the gentlemen and gentleladies on the other side, for recognizing this threat and being willing to do something about it. We applaud you and we are with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Perry. Mr. Sherman. Mr. Sherman. I support the bill. Interference in our election is an attack on America. The bill imposes sanctions on particular individuals who were involved in that. I want to bring to the attention of the committee a provision that we were able to add to the NDAA that also imposes sanctions on Russia, but on the Russian State rather than Russian individuals. That provision says that no American entity can invest in Russian sovereign debt. And while this provision has gone mostly unnoticed here in the United States, it has been noticed in Moscow. As we work on this bill, I think it is important that we indicate what constitutes interference in elections. If Putin wants to sign a favorable intermediate-range missile treaty with the United States, and he chooses to do it 2 days before our election, it would be great if we could get such a favorable treaty. If RT TV, their media outlet, wants to editorialize, that is fine. They are doing it in their own name, and Americans watching know they are watching Moscow propaganda. I think it is important, as we move through the process, that this bill be limited to things that are wrongful that affect our election, including messing with the vote tabulation system and the vote casting system; voter registration rolls, et cetera; false flag communications where hackers in St. Petersburg pretend to be accountants in the San Fernando Valley, and the theft, whether it be physical or cyber theft, of information. Because I do not want us to be accused of chilling free speech, RT TV can say whatever it wants, just as other media outlets do. The provision that we passed as part of NDAA does just that. It defines what is and what is not interference in our election. And this bill is necessary. The response so far to the Russian interference on our elections has been negligible. A few individuals, I believe, have been told they cannot get visas. We need to do far, far more. So, I look forward to working with the authors of this provision to make sure that we deter Russia from interfering in future elections. And I think that if Russia can go through the 2020 cycle without interfering, that at that point we should lift some or all of the sanctions imposed for their past interference, not because their past interference is not wrongful enough to justify permanent sanctions, but because they ought to have some incentive to forgo what the last speaker just identified has been a decades-long practice of illegal interference in our elections. With that, I yield back. Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. Mr. Wilson. OK. Do any other members seek recognition? Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I pass. Chairman Engel. Oh, OK. Mr. Wilson. So, proceed. Thank you. Chairman Engel. Any other members on the Republican side seek recognition? OK. Ms. Houlahan. Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the Foreign Affairs Committee has historically been a committee that champions bipartisanship, and I am really grateful to you, Mr. Chair, and also to Ranking Member McCaul, for having strived to maintain that commitment. Whether we like it or not, bipartisanship is what serves the American people best, and reaching across the aisle allows us to pass legislation that moves our country forward. And the bill today, as I think many of us have recognized, could not be more urgent. And as many of us have also recognized on both sides of the aisle, Russia did interfere in our 2016 election. It is an established fact, confirmed by our best intelligence. And I hope that I speak for all my colleagues today when I say that any foreign adversary who interferes in our democracy must be held accountable, regardless of when it happened. However, I am really not naive to the difficult position that my Republican colleagues are in. This bill should not feel like a referendum on the 2016 election, and I can really appreciate why some people might feel that way. So, last night I did reach across the aisle with what I believe to be an amenable solution, to push back the date in this bill from January 1st, to retroactively include any interference from foreign adversaries in the 2012 Obama Administration election as well, not necessarily because there is any evidence of interference in that election, as there was in 2016, because I wanted and we wanted to make it clear that this is not about relitigating the outcome of the 2016 election, but, rather, about the health of our democracy. Frankly, if it were not for the burden it would place on our State Department, I would propose pushing it all the way back to the 1930's or to 1776. There must be accountability for foreign interference in one of the founding principles of our Republic, the right of the American people to democratically elect our own representatives. It should be investigated and punished, regardless of when it happened. So, I offer the 2012 date in an effort to make this a bipartisan bill, to give us all the chance to send a resounding message to the world that the United States will respond forcefully to any interference in past elections and will not tolerate any such malign activity moving forward. Full stop. I am disappointed that the ranking member refused our proposal. I reached across the aisle in an effort to protect our democracy, and I cannot honestly, for the life of me, understand why we are unwilling to compromise in this way in order to do whatever it takes to hold Russia accountable and foreign powers accountable for helping elect an American President, Republican or Democrat, and do whatever it takes to prevent such an intervention from happening in 2020 and beyond. I also really would love to see this kind of movement come out of our committee bipartisanly, and I would have really loved it if we had been able to consider this compromise. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Engel. Thank you, Ms. Houlahan. Do any other members on either side seek recognition? OK. Seeing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Do any members seek recognition on the bill? Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I have got an amendment to H.R. 3501, and I ask for its immediate consideration. Chairman Engel. All right. The clerk will designate the amendment. A little glitch here. Thank you. OK. Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Ms. Stiles. ``Perry Amendment No. 1. Page 3, line 16, strike `or of any' and insert `of a'; Page 3, line 17, insert `or of any person acting independently of a foreign government before undertaken'; Page 3, line 20, insert `including by voting, attempting to vote, assisting others to vote, or attempting to assist others to vote, in a manner that violates the laws of the United States after' ''---- Chairman Engel. Without objection, further reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. [The amendment of Mr. Perry follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7050.136 Chairman Engel. A point of order is reserved. Mr. Perry, you are recognized for 5 minutes in support of the amendment. Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you, the ranking member, and the members of this committee, for your indulgence. We are debating legislation this morning to combat foreign interference in our elections, but the bill as presently drafted ignores the largest threat to the legitimacy of results. This amendment will correct that by adding to the definition ``foreign interference'' the acts of ``voting, attempting to vote, assisting others to vote, or attempting to assist others to vote, in violation of the laws of the United States''. If we are really serious about combating foreign influence on our elections, we must get serious about the issue of illegal voting. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania found over 11,000 non- citizens on their voter rolls. The State of Texas found approximately 95,000 individuals identified as non-citizens registered to vote. As more States and localities are providing illegal foreign nationals with driver's licenses and even allowing them to vote in local elections, the risk of foreign voter registration and participation will only increase. States moving to automatic voter registration---- Mr. Vargas. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Point of order. We did not receive copies of this amendment. Not enough copies were made. We did not receive one. Chairman Engel. Yes, proceedings will suspend. Let's check this out. OK. The amendment is being distributed. We want to make sure everybody has one. OK. Does everyone have a copy? Anyone who does not have a copy? All right. The gentleman can continue with his statement. Mr. Sherman. Reserve a point of order. Chairman Engel. Mr. Sherman. OK. Mr. Sherman has reserved a point of order. Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Continuing on, States moving to automatic voter registration have encountered problems of registering foreign citizens to vote in the United States. Due to claimed typos, New York passed a bill that would automatically register non- citizens to vote. California recently admitted to various voter registration errors that resulted in 24,500 individuals being registered improperly. Each time an illegal foreign national votes, an American's legitimate vote becomes irrelevant. Mr. Chairman, foreign interference, if we really, truly want to get after it--we can talk about Facebook ads and bots, and they are, indeed, important, and this bill addresses them-- but certainly we cannot ignore the fact that people from places like Russia or China, who do not have the best interest of the United States at heart, could come to America, indeed, are coming to America, and can be voting in our national elections. And so, I hope we are serious about it and include this amendment, so that we can counter that. If this committee is truly serious about combating foreign interference--this is foreign interference in our elections--to protect the integrity of the results and maintain confidence of the American voter that their vote counts, we simply must adopt this amendment. I urge passage, and I yield the balance. Chairman Engel. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Sherman, on a point of order. Mr. Sherman. The first part of this amendment makes it applicable to, quote, ``any person acting independently of a foreign government''. That would include chiefly Americans acting independently of any foreign government. This is the Foreign Affairs Committee. What an American does in America, not acting on their own and not in conjunction with any foreign government, is about as far away as you can get from the jurisdiction of this committee as I can imagine. So, for that reason, I believe that the amendment is not within the jurisdiction of the committee. Chairman Engel. Yes, this amendment was not distributed to us in advance. That was part of the confusion here. But it does not seem to be germane. Will the gentleman withdraw his amendment because it is not germane? Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I am not interested in withdrawing. If you are going to choose to make it non-germane, that could be your choice and it could move on to another multijurisdictional committee. But I think this issue is important. We are in the Foreign Affairs Committee. We are talking about foreign interference of our elections, and this should be added to this legislation one place or another, and I want to make that case here. And if other members so desire and they serve on other committees, they can take the opportunity to take the amendment and offer it in those committees, assuming it is not germane here. Chairman Engel. Let me rule. The chair is prepared to rule. The chair finds that the amendment is not germane. The objective of the amendment is unrelated to the objective of H.R. 3501. And therefore, I will rule that it is not germane. Anyone seeking recognition to speak on the bill? Mr. Castro. On the bill. The amendment has been ruled out of order. Ms. Spanberger. No. Do any other members week recognition on the bill? Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for ruling on the amendment. I support that ruling. We heard this before. We heard the President back then say that, in fact, he may have won the popular vote because thousands and thousands of undocumented voted. In fact, he said that, unsubstantiated, that 58,000 out of 95,000 people registered in Texas that were undocumented voted. We have been down this road before. The real issue is how the Russians hacked into many of the local/State boards of elections. The issue is how they not only hacked into those boards of elections, they even hacked into the companies that made the software for these States' boards of elections. That means that they have a handle, they have interior control and knowledge of the applications and the software of our electoral system. At anytime they can come in and sabotage it, leading to, again, the erosion of confidence in the electoral process by the American people. So, I support this bill, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat. Any other members seek recognition on this bill? Ms. Spanberger. Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am speaking in support of this bill. It is fundamentally important that we do everything possible to protect our democracy and to hold those accountable who have endeavored to interfere in our elections. Notably, I do share the disappointment of many in here that this timeline only goes back to 2016. The Mueller report fully outlines that there were foreign individuals, Russian individuals, who came to our country in an attempt to learn about our system and in an attempt to gain information that would allow them to sow discord within our communities and potentially impact our elections. But that will not stop me from supporting this. Because when it comes down to it, the bottom line is we all know that the Russians interfered with our elections; the Russians hacked a major political party; the Russians stole information and sought to weaponize it; the Russians had troll farms meant to sow divisions within our community. And my primary goal here on this committee is to make sure that we are protecting American interests, and in this case it comes to using our capabilities here on the Foreign Affairs Committee to ensure that we do everything possible to protect our elections from foreign interference. And that is why I urge my colleagues, including those who share disappointment over the timeline, to vote for this bill. Notably, it does not stop the intelligence community from sharing information about who might have come here in 2013, in 2014, in 2015, but it is a step forward. It is an affirmative action to protect our elections moving forward and to make sure that those who came to sow dissent, who came to interfere, are held accountable. Thank you. I yield back. Chairman Engel. Thank you. The gentlewoman yields back. Do any other members seek recognition on this bill? Mr. Castro. Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to offer a point of clarification because I do not want to let this misinformation stand. Mr. Perry, Representative made a comment about Texas and 95,000 non- citizens that were registered to vote. Texas actually made a terrible error, the Secretary of State and the Governor, and had to admit in court that they were wrong. There were never those 95,000 people. In fact, the title of one of the articles was, ``Texas Settles Lawsuit Over Bungled Search for Illegal Votes''. And from this article, it says, ``The settlement requires Texas to change how it investigates voter citizenship and pay $450,000 in fees to civil rights groups that brought the lawsuit.'' Quote, `` `This settlement brings an end to a deplorable Texas farce in which State leaders shamelessly lied about alleged widespread fraud by Latino and other immigrants, grabbing headlines and national attention,' said Thomas A. Saenz.'' Unquote. ``The State originally claimed that 58,000 people on the list had voted in at least one election since 1996. But, significantly, Texas officials failed to exclude voters who legally cast ballots only after becoming naturalized citizens.'' So, these people became citizens. They were basing it off of a search of driver's license applications and holders. So, there were never 95,000 people. Texas messed up. Thanks. Chairman Engel. OK. Thank you. Mr. McCaul. Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to give some context to this whole debate because I have been in the middle of it, really, since being a young prosecutor in the Justice Department. I was also in the October 2016 ``Gang of Eight'' briefing with the DNI and the Secretary of Homeland Security, who told me at that time in a classified setting that the Russians were, indeed, interfering in our elections. At that time, I asked the administration--at that time, the Obama Administration--to condemn this action and call it out for what it was and prosecute. And I fully supported the Mueller probe and the prosecutions as well. When I was a young prosecutor in the late 1990's, I prosecuted the campaign finance violations, which ultimately led us to the Director of Chinese Intelligence, working with China aerospace, to put money into a Hong Kong bank account to influence the then-Clinton campaign. The idea of foreign influence in our elections, as Mr. Perry said, is really nothing new. And we should object to it at any point in our history. I did as a young prosecutor and got justice, and I did when I was briefed in a classified setting on this issue. I would submit to you this, Mr. Chairman: I would prefer to take out any dates and let this committee look at all foreign national, foreign government interference in our elections, whether it be Russia, whether it be China, whether it be Iran. So, I would submit that to you, Mr. Chairman. I would be willing to work with you on this bill to make this bill better and, quite frankly, more expansive, and not just looking at one election and one party and one President, but, rather, anytime a foreign government has interfered in our election. So, I would hope, Mr. Chairman, you would take me up on this offer. And with that, I yield back. Chairman Engel. OK. Mr. Reschenthaler. Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I am going to be voting no, but I just want to explain why I am voting no. I think that election interference is, obviously, an issue, but I have got an issue with the retroactive nature of this bill, looking back to 2016. I think that our adversaries in the world, and those who are challenging our hegemonic status, are not looking back. They are looking ahead. We have China who is building a six-carrier fleet to move into a blue water navy. We should be very concerned about that. China is also making moves in the South China Sea, again, challenging our hegemonic power in the Pacific. They are crushing opposition leaders in Hong Kong. They have re- education camps with the Uyghurs. And yet, we are doing nothing. We are looking back to 2016. Moving to the Middle East, you have a war in Yemen. You have Syria. You have Iran who shot one of our drones out of the sky and is seizing tankers. That is a problem. And then, in our own hemisphere you have Maduro and you have a crisis with refugees flooding into Colombia, which threatens one of our allies. And yet, we are looking back to 2016. So, to the extent this bill is retroactive, I am against it, and that is why I am a no vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman. Chairman Engel. I thank the gentleman. Who am I hearing? Mr. Connolly. Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will not be lulled into the false argument that what happened in 2016, frankly, has been going on since forever and it is no different. It is different. It is qualitatively different. It is unprecedented. It was systematic. That is why Robert Mueller indicted 26 Russian operatives. Never before--maybe because of the rise of social media--have we had a foreign adversary systematically attempt to interfere and direct the American election. We must speak out about that. We cannot pretend it is all the same; France favoring Jefferson in the 1800 election is no different than Russian interferences and bots and fake news and fake purchases of Facebook with deliberately false and misleading information to the American people in the millions is the same. It is not. And after three Congresses, the time has come for us to speak out as Americans about what Vladimir Putin's Russia has tried to do, so it does not happen again. But you cannot address the future without quite clearly addressing the past. So, do not be lulled into the false argument that it is all the same. It most certainly is not. And we must speak out. We must be heard. We need to be the voice of the American people. Mr. Chairman, if there are no other speakers, I urge us to come to a vote. Chairman Engel. Do any other members seek recognition on this bill? If not--Mr. Malinowski. Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly, because I heard the statement of my friend from Pennsylvania about the retroactivity of the bill. And just as a point of clarification, it does back to 2016. We offered that it would go back to 2012. I would be happy going back. As Ms. Houlahan said, she would be happy to go back to 1776. But it also looks forward. And just to be very, very clear, the reports that are required in this legislation, the next report, obviously, would go back to 2016, but it requires a report after every single Federal election forever. So, I completely share my friend's concern that this could happen from Iran, from China, from many other actors in the future, and the bill fully addresses that. This sets up a system that allows us in perpetuity to hold foreign actors accountable for the types of interference that I think we both are concerned about. Thank you. I yield back. Chairman Engel. OK. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to support H.R. 3501, our Secure Our Democracy Act, which imposes sanctions on any foreign individual or entity who interferes in U.S. elections. Though we have known since 2006 that the Russian Government was engaged in efforts to interfere in that and in subsequent elections, with the release of the Mueller Report earlier this year, the American people learned the extent to which representatives of the Russian Government attempted to influence and undermine our democracy. The Mueller Report found that, and I quote, the Russian Government interfered in the 2016 Presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion, end quote. These efforts ranged from the simplistic to the sophisticated but they were intended to sew chaos in our democratic process. We also know that Russia and other entities are actively engaging in ongoing election interference to this day. We must send a strong message that these types of behaviors will not be tolerated and will be met with the full force of our law. I am very grateful to my colleagues, Chairman Engel and Congressman Connolly for their tireless efforts to pass this legislation and I urge my colleagues to understand the world is watching. The world is watching, our adversaries are watching whether or not the Congress of the United States is united in our defense of our democracy and our message that no one, no foreign adversary has any right to interfere in an American election, that elections will be decided by the American people and no one else. This committee vote is an important vote. It is a moment to stand up and to tell the world, Republican, Democrat, Independent, it does not matter, as Americans, we will not tolerate interference in an American Presidential election by a foreign adversary. I urge everyone on this committee to support this excellent piece of legislation. And I yield back. Chairman Engel. The gentleman yields. Any other requests for recognition? If not, the question is to report H.R. 3501 to the House with the recommendation that the bill do pass. All those in favor, say aye. All opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The measure is ordered favorably reported. We now move on, pursuant to notice for the purposes of a markup, I now call up the Bass Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.Res. 326, Expressing the sense of the House regarding United States efforts to resolve the Israeli- Palestinian conflict through a negotiated two-State solution. [The Amendment offered by Ms. Bass follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Engel. The clerk will report the amendment. Ms. Stiles. Bass Amendment Number 1 in the nature of a substitute. Strike the preamble and insert the following: Whereas the special relationship between the United States and Israel is rooted in shared national security interests and shared values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law-- -- Chairman Engel. Without objection, the first reading of the amendment is dispensed with. Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be considered as base text and shall be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. And at this time, I recognize myself to speak on the amendment. I am glad we are considering measures today to strengthen Israel's security and help advance the United States-Israel relationship. Israel remains our most important ally in the Middle East and I will work every day to make sure that Israel will continue to thrive as a Jewish and democratic State. In fact, I just returned from a visit to Israel last month and, as always happens, when I travel to the region, and the ranking member and I have traveled together, my experience with the Palestinian and Israeli people only strengthen my resolve that we must find the path forward to peace to a two-State solution. And I agree with the longstanding bipartisan consensus with Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama that a two-State solution is the best way to solve the dispute because, in my decades of working on this issue, I have yet to see any other plan, other than the two-State solution, that would ensure that Israel remained both majority Jewish and democratic and addresses and advances the rights and the dignity of the Palestinian people. Since the 1990's, that has been the United States policy and that of many of our allies and partners around the world, that we must approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with this goal that 1 day there will be a Jewish and democratic State of Israel living within secure and recognized borders, alongside a viable, peaceful Palestinian State that advances the self- determination of the Palestinian people. Exactly how we would get there remains an open question but the end goal was clear with broad bipartisan consensus. The United States has a vital role to play in the peace process and we must stand firm in our commitment to the idea that both Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live with security and dignity. So I am pleased that we are considering Mr. Lowenthal's measure, H.R. 326, that underscores the United States commitment to the two-State solution. I consider myself to be one of the strongest supporters of Israel in Congress and I truly believe that this resolution will go a long way in ensuring that. This resolution is made to send a message that unilateral moves, whether they be annexation or unilateral steps by Palestinians at the United Nations, to gain Statehood status outside the context of a negotiated two-State solution will put the cause of peace further out of reach. While I am disappointed we could not reach consensus on this resolution, I know that all members of this committee on both sides of the aisle want to see peace in the Middle East and that is why I remain committed to a two-State solution. But regardless, I look forward to working with Ranking Member McCaul, with whom I traveled to Israel, and all of the members on this committee on ways to help bring about a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure to reaffirm our commitment to the two-State solution. Do any other members seek recognition to speak? Mr. Zeldin. Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And first off, I want to say thank you to Mr. Lowenthal and to Ms. Bass for their work on this issue. While I am going to outline some of my concerns with the bill, it would be lost if I did not start off with stating that a lot of this resolution I not just agree with but strongly agree with and both Ms. Bass and Mr. Lowenthal should be commended for their initiative in bringing this forward. So three things I just wanted to discuss, as far as my concerns with this resolution. First, H.Res. 246, which is going to be considered today, and I am looking forward to that coming up a little bit later, I thank all of my colleagues from Chairman Engel, to his great team, to many others on the other side of the aisle here for their work on that bill. Congressman Schneider, Chairman Nadler, and others took a leadership with H.Res. 246, which sends a strong, powerful statement that covers a lot of what this resolution says and more. This resolution is basically a watered down--respectfully, it is a watered down version of the resolution that we will be considering in a bit. There is nothing that this resolution does that H.Res. 246 does not do. It just does not have some of the strongest, most powerful statements that are in H.Res. 246 that have garnished over 300 bipartisan cosponsors. That is a resolution that, for several months, many members on both sides of the aisle have been working very closely with to try to get the language right. Chairman Engel and his team have been great to work with on H.Res. 246, working with the lead Republican, other members of this committee. But that is the first concern is that this resolution does not include anything that the other resolution does not include. And it is missing a lot of the most powerful statements that were very important priorities for many members, I believe, on both sides of the aisle. The second component is with regards to a line that references principles set forth by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry in December 2016. That is specifically Stated in the resolution. And I disagreed with certain aspects of President Obama's foreign policy as it related to Israel, specifically, but what was of huge concern to me was what happened after the November 2016 election, whether it was U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 that passed without a United States veto that, for the first time at that Security Council, was saying there was a violation of international law and calling it occupied territory, language that is included in the original text that Mr. Lowenthal put out, and we worked behind the scenes to get U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334. And part of the principles that are specifically referenced in this resolution became very controversial and many people in and out of Congress had a huge problem with the way it was presented, not just at the United Nations but, if you remember, Secretary Kerry gave a speech. It was about 90 minutes or so long and he was lecturing Israel on everything in his mind that he believed that they were doing wrong, without having the accountability that was necessary with regards to the Palestinians. And that is where many of us observed, you can be a neutral arbiter without sacrificing being an honest broker. One other paragraph talks about, quote, opposed settlement expansion moves toward unilateral annexation of territories. This is the third point I wanted to put out. If we are going to get into listing the preconditions that should be necessary, the most important preconditions that aren't included but should be: one is recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State; two, ensuring a demilitarized Palestinian State; and three, recognizing Jerusalem as the rightful capital of Israel. Those are three preconditions as part of historical negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians that, if we were going to get into listing preconditions in this resolution, I would encourage the authors to add the additional preconditions, especially the most important ones. So those are the three most important reasons why I am concerned with this bill and the underlying amendment, mostly because this resolution takes out a lot of what is in 246 that we will be considering later that we support most strongly. And I yield back. Chairman Engel. The gentlemen yields back. Thank you, Mr. Zeldin. Mr. Sherman, you are cognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Sherman. This resolution is imperfect, as all are. It repeats things that we have already said. Every resolution on the Middle East repeats something we have already said. It is not comprehensive. We do not necessarily have enough paper to be comprehensive in stating all of the relevant factors in the Middle East. I think it is a good resolution. I look forward to working with the gentleman from New York on the resolution he refers to and we can--this will not be the last statement of this committee on the Middle East. I do not think that we have to criticize the resolution because it mentions President Obama and then there are things that President Obama did that we disagree with. There are things that Jefferson, Jackson, and Roosevelt did that I disagree with. The fact is, it was regrettable that we did not veto that resolution in the U.N. but that, I think, is to the side of this resolution. This resolution is important because it talks about how critical it is to have a two-State solution. I want to caution some--we in America are in a multi-ethnic society. Our goal is for everyone to get along and everyone to have an equal right. And that is a noble goal. And so we might think that those who are proposing a one-State solution for the Holy Land have a similar goal. If their goal is to have French-speaking and Dutch-speaking Belgians walking hand-in-hand down the streets of Brussels, each in their own community or linguistic community, each recognizing with the joy the citizenship of the other in peace, harmony, and equality, that is not what the advocates of the one-State solution are supporting. On the Palestinian side, Hamas supports a one-State solution, so long as, first, the Holy Land is ethnically cleansed of all Jews and then they have an internal argument about whether to exclude those Jews who can document that their families lived there in roughly the year 1600. The Ottoman Empire was not noted for its issuing of identity documents designed to survive hundreds of years. And there are those in Israel who believe that Israel should annex Ramallah but none of them believe--who are advocating that believe that the residents of Ramallah should have a vote in electing the Israeli Knesset. A two-State solution is the solution. And now when a two- State solution is under the--seems to have bleak prospects is precisely why we need to pass this resolution. And I can recognize why those in Israel are not optimistic about a two- State solution. Again, again, and again, the Palestinian side has rejected negotiations to create a two-State solution. At Camp David, offers were made that are far beyond what could be made today by any Israeli Government, brokered by the United States and President Bill Clinton and rejected. But ultimately, we need a two-State solution. Unfortunately, not only does Hamas reject the two-State solution, but the Palestinian Authority continues to demand that if there are two States, that the Jewish State must accept any Arabic-speaking person who claims, and, again, the Ottomans had no records, that they or any of their ancestors ever lived in Israel has the right to move there. So, from the Palestinians Authority side, we have advocacy for a two-State solution, as long as they are both Arab States. This resolution indicates that we need two States for two people, democratic, equal rights for the citizens of those States. It is a necessary resolution and I have never voted for a perfect resolution. I will not be voting for a perfect resolution today but we need to pass this resolution. Mr. Zeldin. Will the gentleman briefly yield? Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Sherman. I will see if--I will yield you 10 seconds. Mr. Zeldin. Thank you. I just wanted to point out, and I appreciate you bringing up the point that I mentioned about President Barack Obama and Secretary Kerry. It was only the words in December 2016. So my issue was that we are referencing their statement of principles and positions at the election but I just wanted to clarify. Mr. Sherman. It was in the same month that something else happened. I do not regard that as a criticism on the resolution. Mr. Zeldin. Well--I yield back my time. Chairman Engel. Any other members wish---- Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak in opposition to House Resolution 326 for a myriad of reasons. First and foremost, the United States should not be prescribing or determining an outcome of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Most of us on this committee strongly advocate for a peaceful negotiated solution to the conflict and the United States does have a role to play in helping our ally, Israel, and ensure both sides come to the table in good faith. However, it is not the role of the United States to be determining the outcome. Whether the resolution to the conflict involves one State, two States, three States, or eight States, that is the decision of the Government of Israel and the representatives of the Palestinian people. Second, this resolution is a clear one-sided rebuke of the work of the Trump administration that has garnered wholly partisan support. As of this morning, there are 147 Democratic cosponsors on this legislation and not a single Republican. This is despite the concept of a two-State solution historically garnering bipartisan support. This resolution calls for the United States to offer a peace plan, consistent with previous United States proposals, taking a clear shot at the Trump administration and his team who have made resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a core pillar of the administration's Middle East policy. This is not the normal operation of this committee. And bringing forth this resolution on the same day our committee is finally addressing a serious and direct threat to the State of Israel, the BDS Movement, clearly undercuts the work of this committee. And I just want to address the comments from my good friend and the good gentleman from Texas. He is correct that there was a lawsuit regarding the purge of voters that were naturalized later. However, or how were the people registered to vote before they were naturalized is the question. Were people naturalized? Certainly people were naturalized later but the question is: Why were they on the voting rolls prior to being naturalized? Texas, in the settlement, has not admitted fault and they are still exploring the rolls. So the point is about the lawsuit, sure, you are right, there was a lawsuit. But the question is: How were people on the voting rolls prior to being naturalized? And with that, I yield the balance. Chairman Engel. OK, the gentleman yields back. Ms. Bass is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for bringing these bills to the committee today. I would specifically like to speak in favor of H.Res. 326, Expressing the sense of the House regarding U.S. efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a negotiated two-State solution that was introduced by Congressman Lowenthal and I, in which I was an original cosponsor, along with Representative Connolly. This bill was introduced because Members of Congress are concerned that the current administration's policies in Israel may not adhere to the longstanding bipartisan U.S. policy promoting a negotiated two-State solution that supports the self-determination of both Israelis and Palestinians. Congress has also grown increasingly concerned by Prime Minister Netanyahu's decision to build a coalition with the extreme far right of Israeli politics for support. These moves have been criticized across the Israeli political spectrum. For decades, both Republican and Democratic administrations have sought to play a proactive role in advancing a two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would result in a secure, democratic Jewish State living side-by-side with a peaceful and democratic Palestinian State. Dozens of Israeli security officials recognize that the conflict must be resolved in a two-State solution. This includes former Prime Minister and Chief of Staff to the Israeli Defense Forces Barak, who made clear that a two-State solution is the only viable long-term solution. It is a compelling imperative for us in order to secure our identity and our future as a Jewish and democratic State, closed quote. This resolution reflects these sentiments. The resolution calls for U.S. policy to support preserving conditions conducive to a negotiated two-State solution and the resolution resolves that it is the sense of the House that any U.S. proposal should expressly endorse a two-State solution as its objective. It also notes that unilateral annexation of portions of the West Bank would jeopardize prospects for a two- State solution and could undermine Israel's security and that a two-State solution is the best hope to preserve Israel's Jewish and democratic nature, while fulfilling Palestinians' right to self-determination. The U.S. must remain steadfast in its support for a two-State solution, which is the best hope to preserve Israel's Jewish and democratic nation--nature. I am proud to join my fellow Members of Congress in reiterating our support for what has been longstanding bipartisan U.S. policy and urge the Trump administration to do the same. I would also like to highlight the bipartisan resolution H.Res. 138, introduced by Congress Member Hastings, expressing support for addressing the Arab-Israeli conflict in a concurrent track with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and commending Arab and Muslim majority States that have improved bilateral relations with Israel. This resolution, Hastings' resolution, expresses a sense of the House in support of efforts to address the Arab-Israeli conflict in a concurrent track with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and commends Arab and Muslim majority States that have improved bilateral relations with Israel. It expresses support for progress toward a lasting two-State solution and encourages further regional progress toward such an approach. Thank you and I yield back. Chairman Engel. The gentlewoman yields back. Mr. Mast. Mr. Mast. Thank you for the recognition, Mr. Chairman. I want to bring up a couple points in opposition to this piece of legislation and to read directly from the text. In the whereas clauses, it States: offers Israel long-term security and full normalization with its neighbors. I think it is a joke if anybody takes that as some kind of whereas fact that a two- State solution offers long-term security to the Nation of Israel. Let me go on. That it recognize the Palestinian right to self-determination and enhance, again, Israel's long-term security and normalization with its neighbors. Now, to put this into perspective, in a few moments we are going to speak about a bill, 1850, Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act of 2019, of which we specifically address anybody that has any ties to Hamas. And why do we identify those that have ties to Hamas? And I was going to speak about this when we get to that bill but to go and speak about the history of Hamas, let's just start: 2003, suicide bomber disguised as ultra-Orthodox Jew detonates himself, 16 killed; August 2003, suicide bomber detonates himself on bus, killing 20 Israelis; January 2004, Hamas female suicide bomber kills four Israelis; March 2004, double attack on Israeli Port of Ashdod kills ten Israelis; August 2004--and I could go on year, after year, after year reading about these links between Hamas terrorism. And let's go to 2006 and I will acknowledge there is a separation between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas between, obviously, the West Bank and Gaza. There, of course, is separation there. But let's talk about what happened in 2006. Hamas wins a landslide victory in the Palestinian legislative elections, gains the majority within their parliamentary body. Their version of Congress. Hamas gains the majority. We are about to vote on a piece of legislation condemning and calling for action against anybody that ties themself to this group and we want to speak about making a State out of that exact same group of individuals. This should make sense to nobody, in my opinion. And with that, I believe, Mr. Zeldin, were you still seeking time to be yielded to? OK. And with that, I yield the balance of my time back to the Chair. Chairman Engel. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Castro, did you want time? No. OK, Mr. Levin. Mr. Levin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wish to speak in support of H.Res. 326. Twenty-nine years ago in 1990, I went on an interfaith delegation to Israel and Palestine with Jewish, and Christian, and Muslim community leaders from the Detroit area. And we traveled all around Israel and we went to Gaza, which then was under Israeli control, and we went to the West Bank and met with Palestinian leaders of all kinds as well. And it was so clear, at that time, that it was an urgent, urgent matter to resolve the conflict through a two-State solution as the only way to maintain a Jewish and democratic Israel and the only way to vindicate the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. And now we have gone 29 more years without accomplishing that. The most important thing about this resolution is that it tries to maintain the long and completely bipartisan American foreign policy of resolving this conflict in a way that maintains security and democracy in Israel and provides, at long last, the rights for the Palestinian people to have their own homeland. The most important danger for Israel that can come in this country is making support for it partisan. So that is why this resolution is so important and why I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to continue our many decades of working together to seek a just two-State solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I congratulate Mr. Lowenthal and Ms. Bass for their great work on this and I yield back. Chairman Engel. I thank the gentleman. Anybody on the Republican side who wishes to speak? OK, hearing none, Ms. Omar. Do any other members wish to speak? No. OK, hearing no further requests for recognition, the question is to report H.Res. 326, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the resolution be passed. All those in favor, say aye. All opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The measure is ordered favorably reported. Pursuant to notices for purposes of a markup, I now call up the en bloc package consisting of the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.Res. 246 with the Zeldin Amendment; H.R. 1850; the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1837; H.Res. 138 with the Wilson Amendment; H.Con.Res. 32; H.Res. 442, with the Malinowski Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute; H.R. 2097; and H.Res. 127. [The Bills, Resolutions, and Amendments en bloc follow:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Engel. I will now recognize myself to speak on the en bloc measures. I am pleased to support all of these measures before us today and I thank our members on both sides of the aisle for their hard work. We have several good bipartisan measures before us today that help advance the U.S.-Israel relationship, strengthen Israel's security, and move toward a two-State solution. First, the United States-Israel Cooperation Enhancement and Regional Security Act, H.R. 1837. This legislation cultivates the relationship between the United States and Israel, touching on how our countries learned from one another on a wide range of issues in helping veterans confront issues with PTSD to advancing space cooperation and improving water and desalination issues. This legislation also advances critical priorities for both Israelis and the Palestinians. It helps restore U.S. assistance to Palestinians and gives American victims of terrorism a clearer pathway to justice in American courts. I welcome this opening for economic and security assistance for the Palestinians to move ahead. As some of us learned in recent travel to Israel, there are major security considerations for both Israelis and Palestinians now that the security assistance has been cutoff due to interpretations of the underlying law. It is also important that we resume programs that promote tolerance and peace-building. I thank Congressman Deutch, Ranking Member McCaul, and Congressman Wilson for their work on this measure. I hope it will help provide some justice to families of the victims of Palestinian terrorist attacks. And as we meet today, violence continues to terrorize the Israeli people. Only a couple of months ago, Israelis endured hundreds of rocket attacks from Gaza, with attacks meant to threaten civilians. I am glad we are considering the Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act, which puts new sanctions on those who sponsor Hamas and Islamic Jihad. I thank Mr. Mast and Mr. Gottheimer for their leadership in crafting this important measure. We will also consider H.Res. 246, a resolution that points out that the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement, or BDS, hinders progress on reaching a two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Global BDS Movement demonizes only one side of this conflict and it puts the onus entirely on Israel to solve this protracted issue when, in reality, the Palestinians need to do their part to move toward a solution. Almost 80 percent of the House has cosponsored this resolution and I am glad we are able to move it forward today. I thank its bipartisan sponsors, Representatives Schneider, Nadler, Zeldin, and Wagner for their work on this important issue. Next I want to discuss an issue that is particularly close to my heart, H.Con.Res. 32, which deals with the murder of the Bytyqi brothers in the Balkans. Ylli, Agron, and Mehmet Bytyqi were three brothers from New York State who were killed execution-style by Serbian officials after they mistakenly crossed the unmarked Serbian-Kosovo border. Their bodies were discovered with their hands bound behind their backs in a mass grave in 2001. Serbian President Vucic promised me more than 2 years ago that this Government would bring the murders to justice. It is simply unacceptable that no Serbian individuals have been brought to justice for these murders. Apparently, there is not even a serious criminal investigation underway. This is outrageous. As chairman, I will continue to speak on this and support legislation that addresses this injustice. Today's resolution makes it clear that Serbia must fully investigate the Bytyqi brothers case and bring justice to the families of these murdered New Yorkers. U.S.-Serbia relations depend on Serbia's adherence to the rule of law, and human rights, and commitment to prosecute horrendous criminal cases such as this. A few weeks ago, when I was in Serbia, I spoke directly with the Serbian President Vucic to tell him that the Bytyqi case must be resolved. I said this to him many times. I have had promises that it would be resolved but, so far, no results. Finally, I want to mention my resolution on the importance of a trilateral cooperation between the United States, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. It is critical that our three nations are able to work together. We have too many urgent national security concerns not to do so. So I am very troubled by the growing tensions between Japan and South Korea and I urge both countries to find a way forward which restores their ability to cooperate with each other and with us. This is a good resolution and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Again, I support all the measures in our en bloc package and I urge all members will join me in doing so. I will now recognize Mr. Wilson for any remarks he may have. Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Engel, and Republican Leader Mike McCaul for calling today's markup. I am a strong supporter of many of the measures before us today and I thank the committee staff, both majority and minority, for their hard work in advance of today's markup. I would like to begin by thanking our colleague from Illinois, Mr. Brad Schneider, and Congressman Lee Zeldin of New York for their work on House Resolution 246 opposing efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel and the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement targeting Israel. This committee has spent considerable time and effort working to safeguard Israel from the many security threats it faces. But Israel faces another threat--the threat of delegitimization. This threat is more pernicious. It masquerades as a peaceful activism but its ultimate goal is to delegitimize the Jewish State and eventually to see its complete destruction. Extremists are very clear, as they shout death to Israel, death to America. Today, this committee will send a clear message that we oppose BDS and all other efforts to unfairly single out Israel. It is not only anti-Semitic, it undermines the possibility for potential negotiated solution. I urge our colleagues to support this important resolution. I would also like to commend our colleague, Mr. Brian Mast of Florida, for his extensive work on H.R. 1850, the Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act of 2019. This important legislation would sanction any individual entity and government that supports Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Today, Mr. Mast will be putting terrorist supporters around the world on notice: If you harbor, aid, or abet these murderous Palestinian terrorist groups, you will face stiff consequences. I should also note that this past Friday a senior Hamas official urged Palestinians abroad to kill Jews everywhere. Quote: We must attack every Jew on the globe by way of slaughter and killing. End of quote. These are the exact words. Enough is enough. Anyone supporting this group's murderous agenda is just as guilty as those terrorists. These hate-filled words come as a reminder to us today on how important this bill is. And I thank Mr. Mast, again, for his presence and leadership on this issue. I am also grateful for my colleague, Mr. Ted Deutch, the Chairman of the Middle East, North Africa, and International Terrorism Subcommittee for his work on H.R. 1837, the United States-Israel Cooperation Enhancement and Regional Security Act. This critical bill authorizes $3.3 billion annually in funds to be authorized for foreign military financing for Israel for fiscal years 2019 to 2023. It expands cooperation between our two countries in every field imaginable--science, technology, energy, water, and more. It also correctly points out that the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act, the ATCA, to make it easier for U.S. victims of Palestinian terrorism to sue the Palestinian Authority. Thank you, Chairman Deutch, for your tireless efforts to support our cherished friendship with the State of Israel. Last, I would like to thank our colleague and chairman of the Helsinki Commission, Mr. Hastings, for his thoughtfulness of House Resolution 326 regarding the two-State solution for the Israel-Palestinian conflict. My amendment to this resolution, in cooperation and notice with Chairman Hastings, would simply clarify that peace between Israel and other Arab States should not have to wait until the resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. In recent years, we have seen an inspiring increase of relations between Israel and various Arab countries. Just last month, the Foreign Minister of Bahrain commented, quote, Israel is part of this heritage of this whole region, historically, so the Jewish people have a place among us. End of quote. Comments like this are unprecedented and should be encouraged. Peace between Israel and Arab States should not have to wait for the resolution of an intractable conflict. I am grateful for the Arab States of the region to follow the model of Bahrain and others for the sake of the future of the Middle East, which clearly would be mutually beneficial for all parties. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Engel. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Cicilline for 5 minutes. Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the en bloc package before the committee. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of Mr. Deutch's bill, H.R. 1837, the U.S.-Israel Cooperation Enhancement and Regional Security Act, which reaffirms our longstanding commitment to ensuring Israel's security and will enhance our security and economic partnerships on a number of important fronts. It is the only democracy in the strategically important region. Both of our countries will benefit from deeper relationships in cyber, energy, education, development, and other areas. I am pleased that this bill also includes a provision I authored in H.R. 2488, the U.S.-Israel Cybersecurity Center of Excellence Act. This provision will allow us to take the first step toward establishing a joint U.S.-Israel Cybersecurity Center of Excellence in order to capitalize on the innovations in the cyber sphere occurring in both the United States and Israel by requiring the State Department to report on the impact of creating such a center. Thank you to Chairman Deutch for your leadership on this issue. Finally, I want to say a few words about the bills related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the BDS Movement. I am grateful to Mr. Lowenthal for his introduction of H.R. 326, which reaffirms the longstanding bipartisan commitment to achieving a two-State solution. At this moment, we feel further away than ever of achieving a peaceful solution where a democratic Israel can coexist with an independent democratic Palestinian State. That is why I think it is so important that we show the world that we haven't backed down from our commitment to a two-State solution and that we believe the United States must continue to play a constructive role toward this goal. Finally, I support the resolution condemning the anti- Semitic Global BDS Movement. To be clear, it is every American's right to protest and boycott whomever they like. Nothing about this bill does or should change that, or should be interpreted as impeding on any American's first amendment rights. America has a long and rich history of using first amendment rights to express strongly held beliefs. What this bill does do is call out the Global BDS Movement for its anti- Semitic rhetoric and actions, and makes it clear that a movement that denies the existence of an independent Jewish State violates American values. I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc package and thank you, again, Mr. Chairman for holding this markup and I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Engel. Does anyone else seek recognition on the Republican side? Is that Mr. Yoho? OK, Mr. Yoho. Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank Ranking Member McCaul and Chairman Engel for holding this markup. This morning we will be voting on many substantive measures, including some that I have co-sponsored, of which Mr. Deutch's bill, H.R. 1837, the United States-Israel Cooperation Enhancement and Regional Security Act; Chairman Engle's resolution, H.Res. 127 Expressing the sense of the House on the importance and vitality of the U.S. alliance with Japan and the Republic of Korea, I think it is so important that we do that at this point in time, and our trilateral cooperation in the pursuit of shared interests; Mr. Schneider's resolution H.Res. 246, Opposing efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel and the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction Movements targeting Israel; Mr. Brian Mast's bill, H.R. 1850, the Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act of 2019. Measures in this markup will have immense impact on the United States policy for generations to come, hopefully, and protect our national security. I would like to touch one bill, specifically, H.R. 1850, which requires the President to report to Congress on each foreign person or country who knowingly provides financial or material support for Hamas or the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and requires the administration to impose sanctions on the identified individuals and countries. During a time when we are witnessing an increased proliferation of extreme radical terrorist organizations, it is essential that we address these bad actors and reprimand those in the international community who are helping facilitate those atrocities. Terrorist organizations are targeting civilian populations all over the world, groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaida, Al Shabaab, JEM, ISIS all seek to instill fear in others through violence and intimidations. In fact, we just had a hearing where in Somalia there was a 7,000 increase--7,000 percent increase in terrorist activities by ISIS. In an increasingly divided world, we must come together to fight these malicious groups, who have increased in number since 9/11. Just last week, 27 people were killed in a terrorist attack on a hotel in Somalia. Al Shabaab, a known terrorist organization with links to al-Qaida claimed responsibility for the attack. To bring an end to this divisiveness and evil, the United States and our allies must present a strong front against these known bad actors and remove them. This will require strength and immediate action and we can start right here on this committee. I yield back. Chairman Engel. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Omar. Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chairman. What are we doing to achieve peace? I believe that simple question should guide every vote we take in this committee. It was the question that guided Prime Minister Rabin in 1993. It was the question that guided President Carter, President Sadat, and Prime Minister Begin in 1978. It should continue to guide our approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I believe the best way to guarantee self-determination for both the Israeli and Palestinian people is to go through a two-State solution based upon internationally recognized borders. This is why I proudly supported Mr. Lowenthal's resolution to affirm what has been the official bipartisan U.S. policy across two decades and has been supported by each of the most recent Israel and Palestinian leaders, as well as the consensus of the Israel security establishment. That solution is a two-State solution. But if we really believe in a two-State solution, we must acknowledge the obvious, which is that one group of people currently has statehood, while the other lives under indefinite military occupation of their land. This is not my definition of it. This is the definition of the conservative Israeli leader, Ariel Sharon, who in 2003 said, and I quote, to hold 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation, in my opinion, is a very bad thing for us and for them. This is occupation, he said. You might not like this word but it is really an occupation. I end quote. I believe that truly achieving peace means ending this occupation and ending the occupation means being honest when Israel takes steps to undermine the cause of peace. So when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says, and I quote, he is more committed to settlements than any in Israel's history. We should honestly say that it is an impediment to peace. There are consequences to these actions. When Netanyahu vows to make the occupation permanent by annexing Palestinian land in the West Bank at the same time we are providing him with billions of dollars in military aid, we should say there are consequences to these actions. And in previous times, Bush and Reagan have said that. But as in all diplomacy, truly pursuing peace is not just about punishing bad behavior. We must support efforts to end the occupation and achieve a two-State solution. I believe firmly that the path to peace does not lie in a violent means. As Martin Luther King, Junior said, peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek but a means by which we arrive at that goal. We should condemn, in the strongest terms, violence that perpetuates the occupation, whether it is perpetuated by Israel, Hamas, or individuals. But if we are going to condemn violent means of assisting the occupation, we cannot also condemn non-violent means. We cannot simultaneously say we want peace, then openly oppose peaceful means to hold our allies accountable. It is precisely when people feel hopeless, when people feel that nonviolence does not work, that their voices will not be heard, that they turn toward violence. This week I introduced a resolution with civil rights leader, our colleague, John Lewis, and Rashida Tlaib, who know the importance of nonviolent movements. It recognizes the proud history of boycott movements in this country leading back to the Boston Tea Party. We should honor these movements, and that history, and we should honor our commitment to the principles that say we must hold our friends to the same standards as we hold our adversaries. I understand and appreciate the bipartisan nature and history of this committee. In fact there are two bills today that I am cosponsoring with Republicans. And I have cosponsored the Sri Lankan resolution with Mr. Johnson and the resolution with Mr. Zeldin. I am also proud to sponsor Mr. Lowenthal's resolution that we just voted on and excited that every single person was onboard on our side. I will not be supporting the en bloc package today. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I yield back. Chairman Engel. The gentlewoman yields back. Mr. Zeldin is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Zeldin. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you bringing this en bloc up today. I fully support this. And it is important for me to point out a few things as the--as my colleague who just spoke used the frequent use of the words of honestly and honest, let's just get to a lot of what is left out. So the BDS Movement has not distanced itself from Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization. BDS supporters, individually, are not distancing themselves from Hamas either. It is wrong to be blaming all Israeli and Palestinian violence, quote, as being due to an occupation. Last Friday, Fathi Hammad, a senior Hamas official called upon Palestinians worldwide to kill all Jews. This is a senior Hamas official just before the weekend. During a closed meeting in October 2017 between Hamas Chief Sinwar and Gazan youth about reconciling with the Fatah movement, Sinwar Stated that the time spent discussing recognition of Israel is over and now Hamas will, instead, discuss when they will wipe Israel out. Hamas uses women and children as human shields. They declare Jihad as an obligation. They deny humanitarian aid to their own people. They deny human rights, launching rockets from Gaza into Israel, killing innocent of civilians, tens of thousands of rockets in Lebanon being launched by--ready to be launched by Hezbollah. Existential threats to Israel all around it, our greatest ally in the Middle East, one that there has been an historic relationship between our two nations, a beacon of hope, and freedom, and liberty in a region of the world that is filled with challenges. We want to be neutral arbiters. Let's not deny our right and our duty to also be honest brokers. To spend an entire time in justifying opposition to H.Res. 246 based off of everything that is wrong is all due to the Israeli occupation. Why not point out the fact that in 2008, Israel offered to withdraw from 93 percent of Judea and Samaria in the West Bank? Or what about our students on college campuses, right now from coast-to-coast, being targeted with blatant anti-Semitism in the name of BDS, or taking into consideration the founder of BDS and all of his blatant anti- Semitism, or the Palestinian Authority's pay-to-slay? They financially reward terrorism. They treat you to a State funeral. They will rename football stadiums after you. We want to use honest and honesty in our remarks? We will give you a whole lot more honesty. Every year, Hamas mobilizes Palestinians in their days of rage to attack Israelis at their border, calling them to throw rocks and fire missiles at Israel, often results in actual violence. Hamas uses incendiary kites and balloons, which has destroyed some 8,000 acres of Israeli farms, parks, and forests. And I was pointing out just last Friday a senior Hamas official called for the murder of every Jew in the world. And you want to oppose H.Res. 246 under the justification that all the violence is due to an Israeli occupation with no honesty as it relates to any of the violence targeting innocent Americans. By the way, when this committee passed and it became law the Taylor Force Act, that is not an Israeli citizen. That is a United States Military veteran, a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point. And the Palestinians paid the terrorists to murder the innocent American-Israeli. We provide tax dollars to the Palestinians and we demanded more accountability. We could go through the list of the 1,355 people killed by Palestinian violence and terrorism. I would blame the people who are inciting that violence and financially rewarding terror. And I would certainly blame the person who actually is responsible for that. The person who actually stabs, the person who shoots, the person who terrorizes. No, they are not martyrs. They are terrorists. And Israel, as our great ally, should be supported. And this work against BDS--I will point out that the BDS founder, if people aren't familiar with it, quote, we are witnessing the rapid demise of Zionism and nothing can be done to save it, for Zionism is intent on killing itself. I, for one, support euthanasia. That is just one of the quotes. I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for what has been fantastic bipartisan support but do not come to this committee, and in this Congress, and start blaming Israel for all of the violence that is happening to it and blaming them for an occupation. That, I will take the strongest of exception with. And that is not honest to be accusing Israel of everything that they are suffering from. That---- Mr. Costa [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. Is criticized for good reason. I yield back. Mr. Costa. The gentleman yields back. And the chair will now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch, for 5 minutes. Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the committee for bringing up this slate of measures today. I support them. I want to thank the committee's staff for working diligently to produce the text before us. Particularly, I would like to thank Mira Resnick of the majority staff and Gabriella Zach of the minority staff for their work on H.R. 1837, the U.S.-Israel Cooperation Enhancement and Regional Security Act, my bill with Mr. Wilson to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship to provide justice to victims of terror and to allow security and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians to continue. And I thank the Middle East staff director--the Middle East Subcommittee staff director, Casey Kustin, for her tireless efforts. This bill puts Congress on record supporting the unprecedented levels of the 2016 MOU and affirms our unwavering support for the alliance between the United States and Israel. The legislation ensures that Israel has the ability to defend herself from the very real threats posed by terrorist organizations that sit on her borders. The United States has always maintained a strong commitment to ensuring that our ally can defend herself and this bill highlights the way in which we can guarantee that commitment but our alliance is based on more than our mutual security concerns. The bond is rooted in mutual democratic values. Israel is a vibrant democracy where political parties span the spectrum from right to left and vigorously debate and disagree on policy. That bond has fostered collaboration in many civilian areas, like water and agriculture, which have yielded dramatic advancements with global impact. This legislation strengthens existing programs for science and energy research and promotes the U.S. and Israel working together to deliver humanitarian aid in developing countries and it expands new areas of civilian cooperation. The legislation creates new avenues for regional cooperation in the high-tech sector, bringing together Israeli and Palestinian researchers, along with regional Arab countries for projects that will have a lasting impact on the entire region. And finally, this bill is a step toward providing American victims of terrorism with a path to justice. In 2018, Congress unanimously passed the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act that was meant to allow American victims of Palestinian terror attacks the ability to pursue justice in the U.S. Courts but an overly broad interpretation resulted in Palestinians rejecting any U.S. assistance coming into the West Bank and Gaza, instead of consenting to jurisdiction. This had the unintended consequence of placing a legal barrier to the delivery of security and humanitarian development assistance to the West Bank and Gaza. U.S. security assistance provides training for Palestinian security forces to secure the West Bank and facilitate security coordination between Israel and the P.A. This training program in the West Bank has resulted in dramatically lower security incidents. I was just in Israel 2 weeks ago and met with the three-star U.S. general in charge of security coordination. In the absence of this funding, security for Israelis and Palestinians is threatened. It is threatened by the current status and we must pass this. Removing this barrier to assistance will also help restore life-saving humanitarian aid that went not to Palestinian leadership but to the Palestinian people through American NGO's. I visited a hospital in East Jerusalem that provides life-saving cancer treatment to patients from the West Bank. That hospital has lost 25 percent of its budget. All of this assistance promotes security and stability. We have a moral obligation to make sure that we proceed with this, and we have a moral obligation to help life-saving assistance flow, and to making sure that victims of terror have the opportunity to be in court. I also thank my colleagues for House Resolution 246, which simply States that Congress opposes the boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel movement. BDS undermines the prospects for a two-State solution and, as House Resolution 326 affirms, the path toward peace lies in direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, leading to two States for two peoples living side-by-side in peace and security, a safe and secure Israel, and a demilitarized prosperous Palestinian State. BDS does nothing to further that goal. It does nothing to encourage both sides to return to negotiations and to achieve lasting peace. And finally, Mr. Chairman, time--as was said earlier, the resolution does not restrict any first amendment rights. It simply allows Members of Congress to be on the record, opposing a movement that attempts to delegitimize Israel's very right to exist. Time and time again, I hear from college campuses around the country, from students, they are Zionists. So am I. They support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State. So do I. And they feel intimidated and scared to express that support when people are threatening them. Palestine from the river to the sea, a chant that is routinely heard at BDS rallies, it envisions a world without Israel. That is what is controversial. I reject it. This committee should reject it. And the whole House should have an opportunity to reject it as soon as possible. I thank the chairman and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Costa. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair will now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mast, for 5 minutes. Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman. And while I do not agree with every aspect of this en bloc package, I would absolutely want to thank the committee, the committee staff, and all of my colleagues for their work on this package. I would like to speak, specifically at this moment, about some issues that I have a very close personal connection to. No. 1, being the bill H.R. 1850, the Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act, which targets groups by imposing sanctions on those who knowingly and materially assist Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or any other affiliate or successor organization. And I spoke about this briefly earlier. Why support sanctions on this group? And I am going to go through a list of things that I wrote down. In 1994, Hamas suicide bombing, five are killed; March 1996, a series of Hamas-orchestrated suicide bombings kill more than 50 people in Israel; June 2003, suicide bomber disguised as Orthodox Jew detonates himself on Jerusalem bus, killing 16 Israelis, Hamas claims responsibility; August 2003, suicide bomber detonates himself on a bus, killing 20 Israelis, Hamas and Islamic Jihad claim responsibility; January 2004, Hamas female suicide bomber kills four Israelis; March 2004, double attack at the Israeli Port of Ashdod kills ten Israelis; August 2004, Hamas claims responsibility for deadly simultaneous explosion on two buses near Beersheba, killing 14, wounding more than 80; December 2004, attack at a checkpoint border between Gaza and Egypt kills five Israelis; January 2005, a bomb at the Israeli-Gaza border kills six Israelis. January 2006, Hamas, and this is very important, wins a landslide victory in the Palestinian legislative elections. They take the majority in their governmental body. Why is that so important in this en bloc package or anytime we are considering any legislation relating to a two-State solution? Because we are talking about putting sanctions on any asset that knowingly and materially assists Hamas. Well, if the government is Hamas, then they are assisting Hamas. They are working with Hamas. And we are, in the same piece of legislation, talking about supporting the right to self-determination of a group of people that conduct all of these terrorist attacks, creating and acknowledging their government that we would immediately have to put sanctions on the moment they became a recognized government that is supporting Hamas because their members are Hamas. This is an oxymoron that is going on inside of this package and that is why I do not support the overall package of this. To speak about some of the more--some more attacks that have gone on--and I do have a special bond, I have friends that have been injured. I, myself, put on the uniform of the IDF in 2015 and met a number of their injured servicemembers from these attacks in their House of the Warrior, a place where their servicemembers recover--2009, 569 rocket launches, 289 mortars; 2010, 150 rockets launched; 2011, 680 rockets, mortars, and missiles launched at Israel; 2012, 2,200 rockets launched into Israel; 2013, 52 rockets launched into Israel, 16 mortars; 2014, 4,500-plus rockets and mortars launched into Israel, and so on, and so on; 2018, 1,100; 2019, so far, 700. Let's not live in the ambiguous. What do these rockets look like? Ten, twenty, thirty feet high, about as tall as that clock on the ceiling. Warheads weighing between 100 and 400 pounds. To put that into perspective, the explosive device that detonated beneath my feet probably weighed about ten pounds. The fragmentation distance that would put people in danger of probably in all certainty being killed, about 300 feet for one of these warheads. Probably 45 feet within these warheads are going to be killed by the blast. These are the kind of attacks that are being orchestrated by Hamas. This is why this legislation is so important and this is, additionally, why I stand against a two-State solution. Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Costa. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The chair will now recognize Mr. Trone for 5 minutes. Mr. Trone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also Ranking Member McCaul. This markup gives us an opportunity for the committee to weigh in on some very timely topics. I would like to highlight the measures I am proud to support today. The first is House Resolution 246, which opposes the efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel in the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement targeting Israel. The BDS Movement is BS. The BDS Movement has been hateful. The BDS anti-Semitic tropes are hurtful and harmful to the Jewish and Israeli people. This does long-term damage to all the people of the region by working against a two-State solution and it is a disservice to those who are truly dedicated to peace. This resolution makes it clear the overwhelming majority of the House of Representatives believe we must find a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but this cannot be achieved through unilateral actions of the BDS Movement. I want to thank Congressman Schneider of Illinois and Congressman Zeldin of New York for introducing it and I am proud to vote in favor today. Finally, I would like to take a moment to mention the United States-Israel Cooperation Enhancement and Regional Security Act introduced by Congressman Ted Deutch and Joe Wilson. The bill codifies a 2016 MOU on security assistance for Israel, and makes clear that the U.S. will be there to support Israel in the event of a military attack on the country, and also ensures we are cooperating in significant and mutually beneficial ways with Israel on the diverse topics like energy, agriculture, technology, and humanitarian assistance. There are so many synergies to be gained by teaming up with Israel on these projects. The bill has 270 bipartisan cosponsors and demonstrates an incredible level of support. I am proud to be a cosponsor and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. McCaul. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Costa. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. And the chair will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been 41 years since the Camp David Accords and, in that 41 years, there have been more meetings, more conferences, more attempts at achieving peace than we could possibly remember. But one thing that history has proven in that 41 years is that if the Palestinian people wanted peace, there would have already been peace. If they wanted an autonomous country, they would have already had it because it was offered. Instead, there is no two-State solution and there will be no two-State solution, as long as the Palestinian people rely on terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. And with that, I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Zeldin. Mr. Zeldin. I thank the gentleman for yielding. In addition to the other great resolutions in this en bloc, I would also like to express my support for H.Con.Res. 32 regarding the execution-style murders of Ylli, 25 years old, Agron, 23 years old, and Mehmet Bytyqi, 21 years old, who were born in the United States and resided in Hampton Bays, New York. This month is the 20th anniversary of the Bytyqi brothers' murder, which is a poignant reminder as to why the House should bring this resolution to the floor as soon as possible. In July 1999, these three brothers went overseas toward the end of the Kosovo War and were arrested by Serbian authorities for illegally entering the country when they accidentally crossed into Serbian-controlled territory. The brothers were kidnapped, murdered, and dumped into a mass grave in Serbia by government officials still serving today. Since taking office, I have been committed to helping the Bytyqi family receive the justice that they have long deserved. In February, Chairman Engel and I traveled to Munich to meet with Serbian President Vucic, where he once again promised to resolve the case of the Bytyqi brothers. Despite many promises by Serbian officials to resolve the case of this State- sponsored murder, there has been no justice served. This resolution notes that progress with this investigation should remain a significant factor which determines the further development of U.S.-Serbian relations. Just last month, Congressman Engel and I sent a letter to the International Criminal Tribunal opposing the early release of Vlastimir Djordjevic, which would be a missed opportunity to obtain information that could lead to justice. The Bytyqi brothers gave their lives to fight for injustice. Now we must return this favor and deliver justice for their family. I would like to thank Chairman Engel and lead Republican McCaul for their leadership and assistance on this issue with regards to this resolution. I appreciate the committee's consideration of all of the resolutions in this en bloc package. H.Res. 246 should be pointed out that the lead sponsor, Brad Schneider, has been in attendance throughout today's hearing. It has been great working with him and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for a resolution that is now up to 340 cosponsors. Mr. Costa. Well, thank you, Congressman Zeldin. Your acknowledgments will be recognized appropriately. So yielding back the balance of your time, the Chair wants to, sooner than later, close this committee hearing, and will briefly recognize Congressman Sherman. Mr. Sherman. I strongly support all of the en bloc and have a long speech for each of them but will just say H.Res. 246 is necessary. It has been attacked as somehow a violation of free speech. It is a nonbinding resolution that simply expresses Congress' free speech on this issue. Only on certain American campuses is this thought to be a violation of the first amendment for somebody to simply say something that is in favor of Israel. And finally, on 442 that recognizes the 10-year anniversary of the Sri Lanka--the end of the Sri Lankan civil war, the Sri Lankan Government has not done nearly enough to heal the conflict. The military continues to occupy much Tamil land, that was seized during and immediately after the war, and this land needs to be returned to really put the war--to really create peace. The government has also failed to meet its promises to amend the constitution to give more autonomy and power to the Tamil regions. And evolution of power to local levels is the best ensure future peace. With that, I yield back. Mr. Costa. The gentleman yields back. Are there any other members seeking recognition? I hope not. Well, hearing none and seeing none, the chair will now recognize himself briefly. I want to thank the Ranking Member McCaul and Chairman Engel for the good work that they and the committee members have done on this en bloc series of resolutions, legislation, and amendments that reflect, I think, a consensus on this important Foreign Relations Committee that attempts to every day work on behalf of the American people, in terms of what is in the best interest of America's foreign policy. Clearly, the challenges that we discussed here today as it relates to the Middle East, particularly with regards to Israel and the West Bank, the Palestinians, have been vexing issues for decades. My first visit to Israel was back in 1981. I have had numerous visits to that part of the world, like many members of this committee. I actually spent a vacation just a few years ago in Israel. While there has been progress made in many areas, the ability to arrive at a two-State solution still seems to be very, very difficult, as we all know. But I think that the good will and the good work in a bipartisan effort by this committee will continue to try to move the ball forward, ultimately, to find a two-State solution that will resolve the challenges we see there and, hopefully, have a lasting peace. Certainly, that is the goal that we all share. Hearing no further requests for recognition, then, without objection, the committee will proceed to consider the noticed items en bloc. A reporting quorum is present. Without objection, each measure is considered as read. The amendments to each are considered as read and agreed to. The question occurs on the measures en block, as amended, if amended. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed? Hearing none, in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The measures considered en bloc are agreed to and, without objection, each measure is ordered favorably reported, as amended, if amended, and each amendment to each bill shall be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute. And, without objection, the staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming changes to any of the measures considered during today's markup. And we thank the staff in a bipartisan fashion for all of their good work. The chair will now recognize Mr. McCaul for a request. Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Pursuant to House Rules, I ask that members have two calendar days to file with the clerk of the committee supplemental, additional, or minority views on any of the bills ordered reported by the committee today. Mr. Costa. All right. This concludes the business for the day. I want to thank Ranking Member McCaul, and for all the committee members, and Chairman Engel for allowing me to close this hearing, all of the committee members for their contributions, and assistance in today's markup, and the comments that were made. At this time, the committee now stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] APPENDIX [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] MARKUP SUMMARY [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]