    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                 FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP OF H.R. 1690 AND H.R. 589
                                DAY I AND DAY 2

    =======================================================================

                                     MARKUP

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                             APRIL 26, 2023; DAY 1

                             APRIL 28, 2023; DAY 2
                                   __________

                               Serial No. 118-22
                                   __________

            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

    52-236PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2024

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                       MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman

    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     GREGORY MEEKS, New York, Ranking
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina               Member
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania	     BRAD SHERMAN, California
    DARRELL ISSA, California	     GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    ANN WAGNER, Missouri		     WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
    BRIAN MAST, Florida		     DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    KEN BUCK, Colorado		     AMI BERA, California
    TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee		     JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee	     DINA TITUS, Nevada
    ANDY BARR, Kentucky		     TED LIEU, California
    RONNY JACKSON, Texas		     SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
    YOUNG KIM, California		     DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
    MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida	     COLIN ALLRED, Texas
    BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan		     ANDY KIM, New Jersey
    AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, 	     SARA JACOBS, California
        American Samoa		     KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
    FRENCH HILL, Arkansas		     SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
    WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio		         Florida
    JIM BAIRD, Indiana		     GREG STANTON, Arizona
    MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida		     MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
    THOMAS KEAN, Jr., New Jersey	     JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    MICHAEL LAWLER, New York	     JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
    CORY MILLS, Florida		     SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    RICH McCORMICK, Georgia		     JIM COSTA, California
    NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas		     JASON CROW, Colorado
    JOHN JAMES, Michigan		     BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    KEITH SELF, Texas

                        Brendan Shields, Staff Director

                        Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP OF H.R. 1690 AND H.R. 589
                                     DAY I

                               BILLS, AMENDMENTS

    H.R. 589.........................................................     2
    Amendment offered by Mr. Mills...................................    15
    Amendment offered by Mr, Meeks...................................    21
    Amendment offered by Mr. Schneider...............................    25
    H. Res. 300......................................................    33
    Bill H.R. 1690...................................................    41
    Amendment offered by Mr. McCaul..................................    49
    Amendment offered by Mr. Castro..................................    67
    Amendment offered by Mr. Castro..................................    70
    Amendment offered by Mr. Castro..................................    78
    Amendment offered by Ms. Kamlager-Dove...........................    84
    Bill H. R. 2789..................................................    88
    Amendment of Mr. Issa............................................    99

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................   103
    Hearing Minutes..................................................   105
    Hearing Attendance...............................................   106

        STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY

    Statement for the record from Representative Connolly............   107

                         VOTES SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    Votes submitted for the record...................................   110

                 ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    Materials submitted for the record from Representative Phillips..   118
    Materials submitted for the record from Representative Perry.....   119
    Materials submitted for the record from Representative Schneider.   126

                FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP OF H.R. 1690 AND H.R. 589
                                     DAY 2

    Roll Call........................................................   143

                                 MARKUP SUMMARY

    Markup summary...................................................   148

                FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP OF H.R. 1690 AND H.R. 589
                                     DAY I

                                  ----------

                           Wednesday, April 26, 2023

                              House of Representatives,
                                  Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:52 a.m., in
    room 210, House Visitor Center, Hon. Michael McCaul (chairman
    of the committee) presiding.
        Mr. Issa [presiding]. Good morning. A quorum being present,
    the Committee on Foreign Affairs will come to order.
        The Committee is meeting today for consideration of H.R.
    589, To impose sanctions on the Supreme Leader of Iran and
    President of Iran and their respective offices for human rights
    abuses and support for terrorism.
        H.R. 330, Requesting the President and directing the
    Secretary of Defense to transmit, respectively, to the House of
    Representatives copies of all documents indicating any plans
    for current or future military assistance to Ukraine and
    documents indicating whether any United States Armed Forces,
    including special operations forces, are currently deployed in
    Ukraine.
        Next, H.R. 1690, To authorize the Secretary to negotiate
    regional immigration agreements, and for other purposes.
        Last, H.S. 2789, To direct the Secretary of State to
    develop a strategy on efforts to strengthen subnational
    cooperation between the United States and Mexico, and for other
    purposes.
        The ranking member being present, we will--I will not do my
    opening statement.
        Pursuant to Committee Rule 4, the Chair may postpone any
    further proceedings on approval of any measure or matter or
    adopting of an amendment. Without objection, the Chair is
    authorized to declare a recess of the Committee any point.
    Without objection, all members will have 5 days to submit
    statements on and extraneous material into the record on
    today's business.
        Pursuant to House Rule 1, I request that members have an
    opportunity to submit views for any Committee report that may
    be produced on or after today's measures, without objection, so
    ordered.
        Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 589, a bill to
    impose sanctions on the Supreme Leader of Iran the President of
    Iran and their respective offices for human rights abuses and
    support for terrorism.
        [The Bill H.R. 589 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Clerk. H.R. 589, a bill to impose sanctions on the
    Supreme Leader of Iran, the President of Iran, and their
    respective offices for human rights abuses and support for
    terrorism.
        Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
    Representatives----
        Mr. Issa. Without objection, the first reading of the bill
    is dispensed with and the bill is considered as read and open
    for amendment at any point. Without objection, the McCaul
    Amendment in the nature of a substitute, No. 39, circulated to
    members in advance, shall be considered as read and will be
    treated as the original text for purposes of amendment.
        I now recognize myself for a short statement.
        This bipartisan bill, which I am proud to be a co-sponsor,
    deals with the outcome of September, when a 22-year-old woman
    was murdered at the hands of Iran's morality police. Her
    supposed crime was improperly covering her hair.
        Her death sparked a vast popular protest movement, with
    civilians across the country chanting ``Women, life, freedom,''
    and other slogans protesting the regime's totalitarian control
    of every aspect of their life and their interpretation of what
    was moral and not.
        The regime responded with a characteristic cruelty,
    cracking down on these peaceful protesters. Since September,
    hundreds have been murdered by Iran's security forces.
    Thousands more have been detained and trumped-up charges on
    many of them, especially women, have been subjected to torture
    and other cruel punishments.
        There are now terrifying indications that the regime is
    involved in a deliberate poisoning of schoolgirls in Iran, with
    thousands of girls poisoned in the last few months.
        Iran has also engaged in ongoing human rights violations
    against American citizens. Iran continues to hold at least
    three American citizens hostage, and Iran has engaged in
    assassination plots of American citizens on U.S. soil.
        These and other attacks on American people and the Iran
    people cannot be unanswered. The bill is designed to force the
    Administration's hand, on a bipartisan basis, to assure that
    the United States is using all available to compel the regime
    to abandon these brutal--good day for this--brutal abuses by
    applying relevant sanctions.
        This includes both laws passed by Congress and Executive
    Orders issued by this and previous presidents. The text we are
    considering today and the amendment that will be offered by
    Representative Mills will ensure the bill's functions
    effectively in both types of authorities, meaning both
    Executive Orders and statute.
        The text also adds a robust reporting requirement on
    sanction determinations required under the bill, with a very
    strict limitations on what can be classified and not otherwise
    made available to this body and to the public. This will
    facilitate full transparency and accountability.
        The Administration and future Administrations cannot hide
    behind nebulous rationales for secrecy and non-compliance.
    Congress and the American people deserve to know exactly what
    is being done and what they are doing to respond to these
    brutal human rights violations.
        With that, I recognize the ranking member for his opening
    statement.
        Mr. Meeks. I support the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute.
        The Mahsa Amini Human Rights and Security Accountability
    Act, or the MAHSA Act, is a bill that would require the
    President of the United States to determine whether high-
    ranking officials of the Islamic Republic regime in Iran should
    be listed under existing U.S. sanctions for human rights abuse
    and support of terrorism.
        Every member on this committee understands the evil nature
    of Iran's Supreme Leader, a man who leads a corrupt, criminal
    theocracy that endangers the Iranian people, as well as the
    entire international community.
        The Supreme Leader murders, tortures, and abuses his own
    people. He denies Iranian citizens freedom and democracy. He
    guides proxy forces meant to destabilize numerous regional
    countries.
        He has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. And he is
    developing a nuclear program that has stockpiled enough highly
    enriched uranium for several nuclear warheads.
        There must be costs associated with this behavior, and the
    United States is delivering those costs.
        The Supreme Leader is currently sanctioned under E.O.
    13876, which blocks the property of the Supreme Leader and his
    office, as well as persons determined to have provided material
    support to the Supreme Leader or his office. As of April 20,
    2023, 112 persons have been designated for sanctions pursuant
    to this order: 75 entities, 36 individuals, and one vessel.
        Some of these designations were made the by the Trump
    Administration, and some have been made by the Biden
    Administration. Is entirely a bipartisan priority.
        The Supreme Leader is fully cutoff from the American
    financial system and is not allowed to travel to the United
    States. He is also subject to secondary sanctions, which allow
    us to greatly expand our sanctions' reach.
        Other prominent Iranian leaders currently under the strict
    American sanctions includes President Raisi, two of Iran's Vice
    Presidents, and seven cabinet ministers, to include the
    Ministers of Communication, Culture, Defense, Intelligence,
    Interior, and Petroleum.
        As I mentioned just moments ago, companies and subsidiaries
    tied to the Supreme Leader in the sectors of energy, textiles,
    mining, chemicals, and financial services are all under strict
    sanctions as well.
        I intend to vote for this legislation on committee to allow
    it to continue to progress to a conference with the Senate. But
    during that process, I want to make sure and certain that the
    legislative text will not harm this or any president's ability
    to adjust to any potential national security event vis a via
    Iran.
        I also hope we can streamline the reporting requirements to
    make them feasible for OFAC and the Treasury Department to
    deliver to Congress.
        I also want to thank Chairman McCaul and his staff for
    working with us on this bill and to make sure that we are able
    to proceed in a bipartisan manner. As always, I appreciate the
    cooperation and working together with the Chairman.
        And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Issa. I thank the ranking member. And with that, I will
    now recognize members under the 5-minute rules, alternating
    between the majority and minority. Is there anyone seeking
    recognition to discuss the bill further?
        The gentlelady is recognized.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
    Meeks for your leadership in working to pass this and other
    important measures----
        Mr. Issa. Could you pull the mic a little closer? It does
    not seem to be working well. See, you move in seniority and
    these good things happen.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Meeks for your leadership in working to pass this and other
    important measures.
        The Iranian regime continues to threaten the fundamental
    human rights of its own citizens. Since the tragic death of 22-
    year-old Mahsa Amini in the custody of Iran's so-called
    morality police for allegedly wearing her head scarf
    incorrectly, thousands of Iranians have joined peaceful
    protests and demonstrations calling for their basic right and
    freedoms to be respected.
        It has been sickening to witness the Iranian authorities'
    brutal crackdown on these peaceful protesters, including
    sentencing some protesters to death and carrying out public
    executions. That is why I was proud to co-sponsor HCon Res. 7,
    a bipartisan resolution introduced by Representative Tenney
    supporting the brave women and men risking their lives to
    protest in Iran.
        I have also worked with Representatives Tom Kean and Bill
    Keating on a bipartisan effort urging the European Union to
    designate Iran's IRGC as a terrorist organization. I am glad
    that on Monday, the Biden Administration in coordination with
    the U.K. designated several senior Iranian officials and IRGC
    commanders for sanctions for violating human rights, further
    increasing pressure on the regime.
        The bipartisan agreement on H.R. 589, the Mahsa Amini Human
    Rights and Security Accountability Act that the Committee is
    considering today, helps ensure that Iran's Supreme Leader and
    other senior officials face the strong sanctions regime that we
    have put in place.
        I proudly stand with the people of Iran in sending a clear
    message that those responsible for violating human rights in
    Iran and exporting terrorism should be held accountable.
        Mr. Chairman, I support this bill, and I encourage my
    colleagues to join me in continuing to support the Iranian
    people. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Issa. The gentlelady yields back. Is there anyone
    further seeking recognition?
        There being no further discussion on the bill, the
    Committee will move to consideration of the amendments. Does
    any member wish to offer an amendment?
        The gentleman, Mr. Mills, is recognized for the purpose of
    offering an amendment.
        Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I understand that there are constitutional concerns
    regarding----
        Mr. Issa. Pardon me. The--we have an amendment at the desk.
    The Clerk will designate the amendment.
        [The Amendment offered by Mr. Mills follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Issa. Just give him an opportunity to distribute the
    amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 589 offered by Mr. Mills of Florida. Page
    5----
        Mr. Issa. Without objection, further reading of the
    amendment will be dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized
    for 5 minutes to explain his amendment.
        Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, I understand
    that there are some constitutional concerns regarding
    separation of powers with the original forcing language of the
    bill as it was introduced, thereby being the President shall
    impose sanctions.
        However, the ANS dilutes it to such an extent that the
    Administration or other Administrations could simply not
    enforce the bill as Congress intends it. My amendment resolves
    these issues by clarifying the technical language, restoring
    the strength of the bill while also ensuring any Administration
    unable to play legal gymnastics can avoid implementing the
    strengthened measure.
        Specifically, my amendment divides the issue between how
    Administration implementation this bill provisions. Regarding
    the sanctioned statutes reference within the bill under which
    Congress can force the Administration to take actions, my
    amendment restores the ``shall impose'' language of the
    original bill.
        However, recognizing that there are legal ramifications for
    applying this forcing language to executive orders, my
    amendment does maintain the ``pursue sanctions'' verbiage for
    those discretionary authorities.
        As someone who has actually been the recipient with my team
    of Iranian Government aggressions, as I was blown up with EFP
    in 2006, I can assure that we most hold the terrorist Iranian
    regime accountable, and this is very personal to me.
        This regime is responsible for brutally murdering countless
    men, women, and children, and supporting heinous acts of
    violence around the world. It is unconscionable to me that
    those responsible for these activities would be able to
    continue accessing financial and economic lifelines provided by
    the United States.
        I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the MAHSA Act and a strong
    supporter. And while I am happy to recognize there are
    improvements that could be made to it, this is what markups are
    for, to have discussions and resolve any issues that the
    original bill may have had.
        I am glad to see some of the changes that were made by the
    Chairman's ANS, and I am thankful for his willingness to work
    with me to find a solution to this particular provision to
    retain the intent and the strength of this bill.
        We must no longer allow the malign activities of this
    regime of the IRGC, of the Quds Force, and those who have
    actually resulted in the brutal murder of exactly who we're
    protecting right now, which is Mahsa Amini.
        I ask that everyone in this room join with me to ensure
    that we not only hold them accountable, but that we actually
    prevent such activities from going on in the future. This type
    of human rights violation cannot be something that we accept.
        In America we claim that we are the shining beacon of
    freedom and liberty. But not supporting such an amendment or
    such a bill would really speak otherwise.
        We also say both on the left and the right that we support
    women's rights. And the right for them to actually have the
    freedoms and the liberties to walk peacefully and conduct
    themselves in the manner in which they see fit, not to be
    ostracized, persecuted, brutally murdered, imprisoned,
    tortured, raped, and worse.
        I ask that we all come together, not just to show the
    greatness of America and what we do here in the Foreign Affairs
    Committee, but to show what we stand for as Americans. Whether
    we are Republican, whether we are Democrat, whether we are
    Independents, we all believe in the freedoms and liberties that
    all should have.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Issa. Will the gentleman yield for just a moment? Will
    the gentleman yield to the Chair? I will not even ask for my
    own, thank you. I do not want to ask for my own time.
        I want to just thank the gentleman for this thoughtful
    amendment, and for the fact that it really does clarify this
    bill in a good way, something we are all seeking and will
    continue to seek throughout the day.
        So that is my entire statement in support of your good
    work. And with that, does any--thank the gentleman. Does anyone
    seek recognition? The ranking member is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Unfortunately, I have to oppose the Mills Amendment. You
    know, what we did, we worked together, and I thought we had an
    agreement with them. But since our colleagues on the other side
    of the aisle have sought to change the deal that we had
    negotiated.
        The language in the Mills Amendment adds unnecessary
    rigidity to the text, so therefore I unfortunately must oppose
    it. The language in the Mills Amendment should clarify the
    imposition of sanctions is done in the manner and mechanisms as
    in the underlying statutes.
        Contrary to fixing the legal gymnastics, the exclusion of
    the language which was suggested in negotiating will add
    confusion in its implementation. And therefore I have no choice
    but to oppose it.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Issa. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
        Mr. Meeks. Yes.
        Mr. Issa. Is there a secondary amendment that you could
    offer to help us bridge this gap? As you know, this a committee
    that almost always reaches consensus, and we would like to do
    that today.
        Mr. Meeks. Always ready to do that, I am always ready to
    have a dialog and a conversation to see if we can fix it, as we
    had been negotiating before.
        Mr. Issa. OK, then if it is appropriate, and I think it is,
    what I would like to do is we will not hold the vote on this
    amendment, and we will continue through the process so the
    staff can see if that can be done, if that is acceptable?
        Mr. Meeks. That is acceptable to me.
        Mr. Issa. OK, then----
        Mr. Mills. Mr. Chair, may I clarify one point?
        Mr. Issa. Yes, of course you may. Well, with the chairman--
    or the ranking member's acquiescence of his time.
        Mr. Meeks. Yes.
        Mr. Mills. Yes, I want to clarify one thing, this myth
    about the amendment as now being more extreme than the original
    text of the bill.
        The fact is this: the amendment simply clarifies the bill's
    intent and resolves constitutional concerns that some have
    raised with Congress forcing the Administration to take certain
    actions in relation to Executive Orders, which are
    discretionary authorities.
        If anything, my amendment is nothing more than a technical
    correction that aligns the intended impact of the bill with the
    legally required verbiage to be effective. Statutes enacted by
    Congress and signed into law by the President are distinct from
    the implementation of Executive Orders.
        What my amendment does is simply reflects that reality and
    clarifies the language of the bill to be in sync with that
    actual reality. It does not strengthen the bill to a point
    which is not unconstitutionally longer. It strengthens the bill
    to get to its original intent that we want, which is to help
    impose these sanctions, not pursue these sanctions.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Issa. Any further comment?
        Mr. Meeks. No, not really. I am just saying and that is why
    I will yield to try to talk, because I want to make sure that
    the amendment is clear about the discretion of the authority.
        So I am willing to have a dialog and conversation and see
    if we can work this out. Because we are clearly united on the
    basics and on the original bill. But I am always ready to try
    to see if we can----
        Mr. Issa. Well, I know we worked well into the night and
    did not quite get there. Let me, if I could ask the gentleman
    would yield for a question.
        As I understand it, the debate is primarily about the
    Executive Orders and how they would be treated. I think we all
    know that a president can issue a new Executive Order at any
    time. And a president can rescind an Executive Order at any
    time.
        Do you think, as we go to the floor, if we could have
    report language that made it clear that that authority is not
    superseded by this bill, that in fact although we are codifying
    Executive Orders, we are not putting them in statute. And
    therefore, a president still has the authority to add a new
    Executive Order or take one away.
        And as a middle ground, that would seem like it would
    affirm what is there in the history, but not prohibit the
    President's authority.
        Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield for a question?
        Mr. Meeks. Yes, I yield.
        Mr. Connolly. So the language being proposed says shall
    oppose, but has a caveat to that, or as appropriate. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Issa. I believe that's correct, Mr. Mills.
        Mr. Connolly. And that is what you referred to, Mr. Meeks,
    as sort of legal gymnastics. And I kind of appreciate the
    gentleman. I mean, I happen to believe we have the power to say
    shall. I do not know, I think that is in the Constitution. But
    that is for lawyers to argue, I guess.
        So I appreciate the willingness to negotiate, although I
    would note, would I not, Mr. Meeks, that we in fact have been
    negotiating language in this bill for 2 weeks, including right
    after 3 this morning?
        Mr. Meeks. You are correct.
        Mr. Issa. But we did have a good night's rest.
        Mr. Connolly. All right. Well, I am happy to join with you
    in trying to work out more. And I understand the hurdles the
    gentleman is trying to get over.
        And the question I think is but is this language going to
    do it. Is this efficacious, or is this language trying to, you
    know, meet this hurdle sincerely in fact going to complicate
    things and make it more murky. And that is really, that is the
    question I think on our side of the aisle.
        Mr. Meeks. Absolutely.
        Mr. Connolly. Yes. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Mills. Would the gentleman offer----
        Mr. Issa. Well, I think now it is my time to say I will
    take my 5 minutes, and I yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Mills. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you so much, Mr. Connolly, I really appreciate as
    well as from Mr. Meeks for your willingness to work on this.
        I will say, however, and I want to reference this, because
    I too want to make sure that we are not worrying about the
    gymnastics that is going to have pursue.
        And that is why while there are debates about the
    Congress's constitutional authority to force executive branch
    to take certain actions based on authorities provided under the
    Executive Order, Congress does have the constitutional
    authority to force the executive branch to impose sanctions
    that fall under the purview of statutes.
        For example, and this is to your point, sir, Section 105 of
    CAATSA required the President to impose sanctions on the IRGC.
    And the executive branch did exactly that. So there are no
    fight in court, there was no question about the
    constitutionality of that provision that was raised.
        And while the original text of the bill caused some
    concerns about the constitutional separation of power, my
    amendment just clearly articulates the distinction between how
    Congress engages with the executive branch on statutes and
    Executive Orders, thereby preventing any questions about the
    bill's constitutionality.
        And to your point, Mr. Connolly, I absolutely agree with
    you. This is a constitutional authority, and I appreciate you
    for bringing that up, thank you so much.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Issa. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Moran. Would the chair yield?
        Mr. Issa. I would further yield, yes.
        Mr. Moran. Just one moment's comment about this. I do
    appreciate the amendment and appreciate the discussion today. I
    just want to offer my support for this amendment and note that
    messaging oftentimes is different than bill-drafting. It is a
    distinct two-way street sometimes. We got to choose one way or
    the other.
        I appreciate Mr. Mills in the drafting of this amendment
    because I think the language is well-reasoned, carefully
    drafted, narrowly tailored to meet the end that it is intended
    to meet.
        It ensures that the actual drafting of this bill
    strengthens the bill's intent, which is bringing more teeth to
    the enforcement measures contained in, it while preserving the
    constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, a balancing
    act that sometimes is hard to do.
        So I support this amendment and just want to thank my
    colleague, Mr. Mills, for bringing it forward in a thoughtful
    manner. But we will see what happens when we get to the floor.
    But I do appreciate the amendment and I support it.
        Thank you, yield back.
        Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. Before I yield back, this
    dialog has been helpful. I for one will pledge to the ranking
    member that we will, regardless of what we arrive and depart
    today with in the way of a base bill, that obviously we want to
    reach the language that was being worked on. I believe we are
    close.
        If there is further need for either report language or
    technical changes, Mr. Mills, I assume that you are willing to
    continue to negotiate. Mr. Meeks, I know you are. So let's go
    through, let's get the bill out.
        But as always, debate does not end with the bill as it
    leaves the Committee. That we do want to make sure there are
    technical changes if necessary that make this bill as good as
    it can and as clear as it can for an Administration that we
    know well can misinterpret that which we do not universally
    agree on.
        So let's see if we can get there. Is there any further
    discussion? Seeing no further requests for time, the motion is
    on the Mills Amendment.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        I just want take a moment to make sure that I make it
    clear. The intention is to continue to negotiate to try to find
    the differences between what I think are the same goal Mr.
    Mills and Mr. Meeks have agreed to.
        We are going to go ahead and have the recorded vote, with a
    recognition that regardless of how we vote here today, the goal
    will be to in fact have the intention that both sides have
    agreed to.
        You know, in a perfect world, we would, you know, recess
    and do it. But I know that we do have four bills to get through
    today. And so I have been advised to go ahead and vote the
    Mills Amendment.
        But I, like Mr. Mills, agree to continue to work in good
    faith. I think we can get there.
        As I said, all those in favor, I heard ayes. All those
    opposed?
        OK, in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes
    have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
        Are there any further amendments at this time? Mr. Meeks?
        Mr. Meeks. I have an amendment at the desk.
        [The Amendment offered by Mr. Meeks follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Issa. The ranking member is recognized for the purpose
    of his amendment, and the Clerk shall designate the amendment.
    Please distribute the amendment. The Clerk shall report the
    amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 589, offered by Mr. Meeks of New York. Page
    9, line 4, strike person and----
        Mr. Issa. Without objection, further reading of the
    amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognize to
    explain his amendment for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have heard supporters of the bill emphasize that the bill
    is about making sure that the Supreme Leader, other Iranian
    leaders, and Iranian enablers are sanctioned.
        My amendment is simple. It clarifies that the scope of the
    sanctions is limited to Iranians and does not extend to allies
    and partners around the globe.
        The language in the current text is potentially over-broad
    and could capture people in companies around the globe. My
    amendment makes sure our focus is where it should be, on the
    Iranian leaders that suppress, impoverish, and commit human
    rights violations against their people and sponsor terror
    around the region and the world.
        And that is simply what it does. And therefore I urge all
    of my colleagues to support my amendment. And I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman, the gentleman yields back.
        The Chair must oppose this amendment for a simple reason.
    In its current form, it could exclude groups which some of whom
    are already sanctioned in other ways, such as Hezbollah, and
    others, the Syrian regime, that are in absolute lock-step with
    the Iranian Government.
        Having said that, if there is any clarification on the
    bill, we want to make it clear that the President and the
    Administration does determine whether someone is that affiliate
    or in control.
        So, hopefully every Administration would find that
    Hezbollah is clearly a partner of Iran, while other groups
    including allies, some of whom obviously do have relations with
    Iran, remain loyal allies. For example, our military base in
    Qatar is a country which does have diplomatic relations with
    Iran, does have Iranians in their country. But at the same time
    is a trusted base.
        And I do see the point of the gentleman, I just cannot
    support it in its current form.
        Mr. Meeks. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Issa. Of course I yield.
        Mr. Meeks. I just want to say that this amendment does not
    remove sanctions from anyone. So Hezbollah, sanctions are
    there. Those sanctions would continue. So it would not remove
    sanctions from anyone.
        Mr. Issa. And I totally agree with the gentleman that it
    does not remove those which we have sanctioned. But as the
    ranking member knows, we often find individuals who can be
    recognized as aligned with the regime, and at any time, it is
    unlikely that they will be able to essentially systematically
    sanction.
        The bill in its current form essentially does not name new
    individuals or new countries, but rather simply says that if
    the Administration finds them to be an extension of Iran, then
    they are covered by the sanctions.
        Which is, again, the Secretary of State, Department of
    Homeland Security, and others clearly have an ability to
    determine, for example, that the Emir of Qatar is not in league
    with Iran, but in fact represents an ally who supports us while
    being just as present in Syria, they are aligned with Iran. And
    I do appreciate that we have a number of sanctions on a number
    of countries, but it is not all-inclusive.
        If report language--if this amendment fails and report
    language making it clear that it is not intended to expand or
    the like were to be added, it certainly would provide guidance
    to the Administration. In the chair's opinion, this really is
    something that should be extensively covered in report
    languages' guidance to the Administration, and I certainly
    wouldn't oppose that.
        I yield back. Do any other members seek recognitions? If
    not--Mr. Mills is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking
    Member Meeks, for your amendment.
        While I do oppose this, I want to make sure that I explain
    why. Throughout my time, I can tell you that during the height
    in the reign of the Quds Force, Qasem Soleimani, there was
    multiple partnerships that had been forged. And many of these
    partnerships were things like that of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in
    Iraq under the Hashd al-Sha'bi and now under Qais al-Khazali.
        But also the marriage of convenience that came about where
    a lot of people do not understand that the General Secretary of
    Hezbollah, Hassan Nazrallah, his own son has married the
    daughter of Qasem Soleimani, thereby ingratiating himself with
    the Iranian Ayatollah.
        By utilizing the language to strike ``person'' and only
    insert ``Iranian persons'' would limit our ability with the key
    factions and the Iranian-backed militias that are actually
    conducting a lot of these things are going on.
        And so we must recognize the fact that if we simply say
    ``Iranian person,'' that would eliminate those like Abu Fadak
    al-Mohammadawi. That would eliminate things like the militias
    that are being launched by Ismail Ghaani. That would eliminate
    the ability for us to start taking a larger approach against
    Abu Fadak.
        These are people who are committing the exact same
    atrocities, and in some extents event worse, that what we are
    actually try to prevent with the MAHSA Act.
        And so it is for that reason that I agree with you, Mr.
    Chairman, that I have to oppose this so that we can ensure that
    all who are committing these atrocities are held accountable.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Issa. The gentleman yields back. Does anyone else seek
    recognition?
        If not, there being no further discussion, the question now
    occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman, Mr. Meeks,
    No. 3. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, signify by saying no.
        In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the noes
    have it. And the amendment is not agreed to.
        Are there any further amendments? I do not see--the
    gentleman Mr. Schneider is recognized for purposes of offering
    his amendment.
        Mr. Schneider. I have an amendment at the desk.
        [The Amendment offered by Mr. Schneider follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Issa. The clerk shall distribute the amendment. The
    Clerk shall report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 589, offered by Mr. Schneider of Illinois.
    Page 4, after lines----
        Mr. Issa. Without objection, further reading of the
    amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman, Mr. Schneider,
    is recognized to explain his amendment for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I support the MAHSA Act. I deplore what this regime does to
    its own people, to the people across the region, and the threat
    Iran and the regime is to our allies and to our own interests.
        I have consistently worked across the aisle on such acts as
    the DEFEND Act, trying to address and prevent Iranian drones in
    the regions and going to Russia, supporting Israel's
    qualitative military edge, QME, and so much more.
        But I also want to make sure that our friends, Iranian
    Americans, know that we are on your side. Democrats and
    Republicans alike and together abhor the Iranian regime and
    want to make sure we are doing everything we can to help the
    Iranian people, even if we do not always necessarily agree on
    the best way to do it.
        And that is why I proposed this amendment. I am a co-
    sponsor of the MAHSA Act, and I want to make sure that all my
    constituents and all our country know that the Supreme Leader
    is already sanctioned. As the ranking member, I urge you to
    vote for this and support this amendment.
        Mr. Issa. The gentleman yields back. Who else seeks
    recognition? The gentleman Mr. Mills is recognized to--for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        While this amendment sounds great, it is always the devil
    is in the details. And essentially what this amendment says is
    that everyone who needs to be sanctioned is already sanctioned.
    And we know that that is actually false, and that there are
    many more who needs to be sanctioned.
        This undermines the most fundamental message of the bill,
    which is that more needs to be done to hold the perpetrators of
    these atrocious human rights violations accountable. According
    to the talking points of my friends across the aisle, they are
    the party of human rights. Yet when it comes down to it, they
    have ground their teeth at bills such as this.
        They tried to kill the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.
    They keep trying to kill or dilute these bills that actually do
    something about these heinous crimes, and not just talking
    points, but gives teeth. That actually enables us to be able to
    go forward and do something and not just look at it as a
    message bill that sounds great.
        This amendment is no different, and I challenge my
    colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this amendment
    for the sake in the lack of teeth that it would provide to the
    sanctions under the MAHSA Act.
        Mr. Schneider. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Mills. And I yield back.
        Mr. Issa. Does the gentleman yield? Did the gentleman yield
    to Mr. Schneider?
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you. First of all, as I said, I am a
    co-sponsor of this act. We support and know we need to apply
    more sanctions and constantly ratchet up the sanctions. Because
    any time you apply a sanction, whoever it sanctions is going to
    try to find ways and oftentimes successfully find ways to get
    around it.
        The intent of this, as the author I can tell you, is to say
    these people are already sanctioned. Not to say that they do
    not deserve more sanctions or we need to ratchet up, but just
    to make sure people understand they are already sanctioned.
        So I am happy to work with you if you could point out to me
    where it says here that this is sufficient or we do not need
    more, let's fix it. But I think it is important that people
    understand that these people are sanctioned.
        Mr. Mills. I appreciate that. And while I understand that a
    lot of these people are sanctioned, the level in which they are
    being sanctioned right now and the additional individuals that
    need to be sanctioned that are not included in this would make
    it to where this dilutes the intent of the MAHSA Act to be able
    to go after further individuals who committed these atrocious--
    --
        Mr. Schneider. I guess that is what I am asking, is where
    here does it say that. Because all this is saying is that it is
    acknowledging that the Supreme Leader and several others are
    already sanctioned. But it has not--and it is not intended to
    say more sanctions are not needed.
        Mr. Mills. But if that is the case and it is just
    recognizing that there's sanctions on the individuals that we
    are referring to, why even include that in the bill? It is
    already an established and acknowledgment.
        Mr. Schneider. Because I think it is important to note
    today and to note every day going forward that we are not
    resting on our laurels, we are not ignoring this in the past.
    We have already acknowledged that the Supreme Leader is leading
    a regime that supports--largest supporter of terrorism in the
    world. We are doing everything we can, for example, to get
    other nations to sanction and declare the IRGC as a terrorist
    organization.
        All this is saying is that yes, we are aware of it. We are
    already sanctioning these people, and we need to apply more
    pressure.
        Mr. Mills. But again, I do not understand the point of this
    bill to recognize something that is already being established,
    when the key to this bill is just to give more teeth and more
    sanctioning on Ayatollah to ensure they do not have even the
    financial and economic instruments that are being utilized and
    being provided by the United States to ensure that we can go
    ahead.
        And if you feel so confidently that they are being
    adequately sanctioned, then----
        Mr. Schneider. That is not what this says. This says that--
    --
        Mr. Mills. It is an open discussion just to State the fact
    that if you feel that they are being adequately sanctioned,
    then fine, let's not go ahead and look at the MAHSA Act, right.
    If we are saying that they are already sanctioned and we just
    need to strengthen it, then what is the point in saying
    something that was already established?
        We know that they are being sanctioned. It is not to a
    point where it actually has enough teeth to be able to do
    something. It hasn't prevented them from the incentives that
    they're--atrocious events. It hasn't prevented them from going
    out and being a State sponsor of terror. It hasn't prevented
    them from the ostracization and the persecution of women in the
    streets.
        So if those sanctions that you are referring to are so
    strong, then why is murders and atrocious human rights events
    still occurring today?
        Mr. Schneider. We agree, the atrocities, the atrociousness
    of this regime is not up for debate. We need to move forward.
    All I am saying is we agree that we have to apply sanctions.
    This amendment recognizes that sanctions are already in place
    on these individuals.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Issa. Would the gentleman yield? Does the gentleman
    agree that they are already sanctioned?
        Mr. Mills. I do agree.
        Mr. Issa. And does the gentleman, Mr. Schneider, agree that
    further sanctions are likely to be needed in order to get
    compliance that we are not currently getting?
        Mr. Schneider. Absolutely.
        Mr. Issa. Might I suggest that two of you work on specific
    report language that says that in a single paragraph, and that
    we put it at the beginning of the report language so that it is
    very clear that those two truths can both occur simultaneously?
        Mr. Mills. I would be OK with that.
        Mr. Schneider. Happy to add to that, but I still would like
    to----
        Mr. Issa. The gentleman will still insist on his amendment,
    but we--but you do agree to do it. And on behalf of the Chair,
    I agree to make sure that it gets in the report language.
        I think the point and the dialog has been very helpful. I
    think this is something that this committee universally agrees
    with as to the lack of effectiveness to deter Iran from its
    activities, which the Administration and this body agree on.
        The gentleman yields back. Anyone further seek recognition?
    Seeing no one further, the amendment--the question now agrees
    on the amendments to the amendment in the form of a substitute.
        All those in favor, say aye.
        Those opposed?
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The noes
    have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
        Are there any further amendments? Seeing no further
    amendments, the question now occurs on the McCaul Amendment in
    the nature of a substitute, No. 39.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        Those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. That ayes
    have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
        I now move the Committee to report H.R. 589, as amended, to
    the House with favorable recommendation. All those in favor----
        Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Issa. Yes, Mr.----
        Mr. Connolly. If I may just--with respect to your motion.
    And that is with that understanding that we are going to
    continue to work out the language we discussed earlier and the
    report language you----
        Mr. Issa. Absolutely. That is why I wanted it in the
    record, and we will--I believe we can get to an extremely good
    paragraph between the two gentlemen. I would ask you to work
    expeditiously, though.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair, and of course we will
    support the motion with that understanding.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you. We now move the Committee--the
    Committee now moves H.R. 589, as amended, to the House,
    favorable recommendation. All those in favor, please signify by
    saying aye.
        Any opposed, say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes
    have it universally and unanimously. And the motion is agreed
    to. And we do not need a roll call. This is a committee should
    not have that roll call in there to be used at all.
        Without objection, the motion is considered as laid on the
    table, and the staff is authorized to make technical and
    conforming changes, including the report language.
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Issa. I normally would object to that, but I do not in
    this case.
        Pursuant to notice, I now call up House Resolution 300, a
    resolution of inquiry requesting that the President, and
    directing the Secretary of Defense, to transmit respectively to
    the House of Representatives copies of all documents indicating
    any plans for current or future military assistance to Ukraine
    and documents indicating whether any United States forces,
    including special operation forces, are currently in Ukraine.
        The measure was circulated in advance. The Clerk shall
    designate the resolution.
        [The Text of H. Res. 300 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Clerk. H.Res. 300, Resolution requesting the President
    and directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit,
    respectively, to the House of Representatives copies of all
    documents indicating any plans for current or future military
    assistance to Ukraine and documents indicating whether any
    United States Armed Forces, including special----
        Mr. Issa. Without objection, the first reading of the bill
    will be dispensed with, and the resolution is considered read
    and is open to amendment at any point.
        I now recognize myself for a short statement.
        One year and just over 2 months ago, Putin, President
    Putin, launched a full-scale, unprovoked war of aggression
    against Ukraine. Last week, the Committee heard heartbreaking
    stories from two survivors of Russian war crimes and heard from
    Ukrainian women who endured 5 days of Russian torture.
        Then we heard the nightmare of a young, teenage Ukrainian
    boy endured when he was kidnaped by Russian invading forces,
    brought back to Russia, and subjected to forced abortion--
    forced adoption, thank you, and reeducation.
        The Ukrainian women--the Ukrainian woman was just one of
    nearly 80,000 reported war crimes, and the young boy was just
    one of nearly 20,000 kidnaped Ukrainian children. The scale of
    Putin's war crimes is staggering.
        In response to Congress--Congress has provided a
    significant amount of assistance to Ukraine and ensured Putin's
    aggression is stopped at Ukraine's border and to ensure NATO
    countries are not next.
        I have supported this assistance because a victory by Putin
    in Ukraine would further embolden Americans' adversaries,
    especially and including Communist China, Iran, and North
    Korea. But every dollar counts. That is why this committee is
    considering and continuing to conduct vigorous oversight of the
    assistance provided to Ukraine.
        For example, last month this committee held a hearing with
    the Inspectors General of DoD, State, and USAID to assess the
    Administration's oversight efforts to date. They each reported
    they had no significant misuse of U.S. funds to date.
        This followed the Chairman's congressional delegation to
    Kyiv, which I was honored to join, to get firsthand knowledge
    and briefings, both unclassified and classified, on the
    safeguards of monitoring mechanisms in--the monitoring
    mechanisms in place for U.S. support.
        It is unfortunate some misunderstand the strong oversight
    has provided the U.S. support for Ukraine self-defense against
    Putin and his brutal invasion. In reality, this oversight is
    vital and must continue. This committee is dedicated to the
    constant both public and private oversight of our monitoring of
    every single dollar and every weapon system.
        U.S. support is enduring, but it is not without the strings
    of accountability. The resolution of inquiry requests the
    Administration to transmit relevant documents related to U.S.
    security assistance for Ukraine, as well as United States Armed
    Forces in country.
        The American taxpayer deserves to know how U.S. assistance
    is being spent. That is why Congress included over 40 oversight
    provisions across the four Ukrainian supplementals in Fiscal
    Year 1923 appropriations and defense policy bills.
        These provisions include numerous requirements to report to
    Congress on every U.S. weapon sent to Ukraine, and
    accountability mechanisms in each of the--sorry, mechanisms in
    place to ensure these systems are used as intended.
        Meanwhile, the small U.S. military presence in Ukraine,
    along with and providing embassy security is critical to U.S.
    defense attache efforts to monitor the U.S. weapons provided to
    Ukraine.
        Let me make it clear: they are not able to fight. They are
    not forces against Russia or in any way supporting directly the
    war effort. Instead, they are on the front lines of the
    oversight efforts.
        I support this resolution, as it is consistent with House
    Republicans' oversight agenda and of the U.S. Ukraine aid.
        Is there any further discussion on the resolution?
        The gentlelady is recognized.
        Ms. Manning. I oppose H.Res. 300. As we consider this
    measure today, I cannot help but feel deja vu all over again.
    We considered a similar measure in the last Congress. That
    measure was at the time divisive and ill-advised, and so is
    this one.
        Specifically, H.Res. 300 is a partisan political ploy and
    the height of legislative irresponsibility that jeopardizes the
    national security of the United States, of our European allies
    and partners, as well as the courageous Ukrainian people.
        From day one of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and
    long before, this committee and the entire Congress has
    remained resolutely bipartisan in our support for Ukraine as it
    fights against Russian aggression. This bipartisanship has been
    pivotal to Ukraine's success and its survival.
        But measures like this put that bipartisanship in jeopardy.
    As we consider this resolution, my Republican colleagues will
    try to gloss over what this really means. They will claim that
    this measure is about oversight. It is not.
        They may claim that it says nothing negative about the
    future of our support for Ukraine. But sadly, it does. Despite
    what my GOP colleagues may claim today, this resolution is not
    about transparency or strengthening accounting of our support
    for Ukraine, which we all agree is critically important.
        This resolution is about division. Reporting it our
    favorably is irresponsible and ignores the bipartisan oversight
    work this committee is conducting.
        This political measure from the lead author of the Ukraine
    Fatigue resolution is unnecessarily divisive and plays directly
    into Vladimir Putin's hands by seeking to force the disclosure
    of all current and future U.S. military plans and documents
    related to U.S. support to Ukraine, including sensitive details
    on the presence of U.S. personnel in Ukraine.
        The sponsors of this measure play directly into Putin's
    hands and jeopardize the very lives of those with whom we are
    standing. Passage of this measure would represent a gift to
    Putin and his Kremlin cronies and provide visibility into the
    plans our military and intelligence leaders strive to protect
    at all costs.
        Therefore, we must reject it. So I ask my colleagues, what
    message does supporting this measure knowing the sponsors have
    continually used extreme rhetoric to call into question U.S.
    assistance to Ukraine, and just last week called for cuts to
    such support just as Ukraine enters a critical phase of its
    military campaign against Russia's onslaught, what message does
    this send?
        Support for this resolution ignores the painstaking efforts
    of the American and Ukrainian Governments and instead parrots
    the propaganda of the Kremlin.
        I want to be clear: I support robust oversight of our
    assistance to Ukraine, and I invite members of this committee,
    as well as any others with interest, to avail themselves of any
    number of opportunities to participate in any of the briefings
    held on such matters, as well as review any of the numerous
    materials available to members on the details of our military
    assistance to Ukraine.
        I also look forward to continuing to exercise this robust
    oversight of our assistance with the Administration and my
    colleagues on the other side of the aisle to keep the
    safeguards on our assistance strong. Going forward, I urge my
    Republican colleagues, now in the majority, to embrace
    responsible oversight efforts and reject partisan politics.
        Let's send out one message, that we on this Committee on
    Foreign Affairs support Ukraine, we will take meaningful steps
    to ensure our assistance is used properly and effectively, and
    remain committed to giving Ukrainians the resources they need
    to win and to thrive when this war is over.
        I oppose this measure, the political stunt at the heart of
    it, and any efforts from within this body to divide us at such
    a pivotal time and over such an important issue. I will be
    voting no, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I oppose
    this measure and urge my colleagues, once more, to please do
    the same.
        Mr. Issa. I thank the gentlelady. Does anyone have any
    amendments to offer?
        OK, there being no amendments to offer, for what purpose
    does the gentleman seek recognition?
        Mr. Connolly. I wish to speak to the----
        Mr. Issa. The gentleman would like to strike the last word?
        Mr. Connolly. I strike the last word.
        Mr. Issa. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair.
        And I certainly appreciate his commitment to oversight. He
    was the Chairman of the Oversight Committee. I served on that
    committee with him. I certainly share his value system and how
    important oversight is.
        However, the Chair would have us conveniently
    compartmentalize this action from the intent behind it. We
    cannot separate the stated, explicit reasoning of the author of
    this provision and some of his allies.
        Let me read to you what Mr. Gaetz has said. ``We must
    suspend all foreign aid for the war in Ukraine and demand that
    all combatants in this conflict reach a peace agreement
    immediately.'' Apparently Mr. Gaetz has decided for the
    Ukrainians what is in their best interest.
        And that means that the intent behind this motion is that.
    I appeal to the Chair, you went to Kyiv. You saw with your own
    eyes and heard with your own ears the pain, the suffering, the
    courage Ukrainians are exhibiting every day. So timing matters
    when this committee acts, even timing on oversight.
        And if we pass a resolution authored by Mr. Gaetz and Ms.
    Green, we are sending an unequivocal message I do not believe
    you intend or I intend with respect to Ukraine.
        We are in a war. Children are dying. Maternity hospitals
    are being blown to smithereens by a depraved sociopath in the
    Kremlin. This is no time to send any signal to those brave
    people that we waver one iota in our ongoing support. And I
    know, Mr. Issa, you share that view.
        And so I join the ranking member in urging my colleagues to
    reject this. There will be time, this committee must insist,
    and I will join the Chair and my Republican colleagues in
    insisting on it, but this is not that time.
        Mr. Issa. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Connolly. Of course.
        Mr. Issa. Yes, I could not agree with you more than any
    effort to undermine our support for Ukraine certainly does not
    enjoy the vast majority of people on either side of the aisle
    here or on the general floor.
        I will note, if I could, that this first of all is not a
    privileged resolution, so there is no assurance that it will be
    considered on the floor.
        I also would note that nowhere in this does any of the
    information, the sensitive information that you and I are both
    personally concerned about, would come to this committee at
    all. Every bit of the information requested as to troop
    movements and the like could be and would held only at the
    Select Intelligence Committee based on history.
        So I might mention to the gentleman that when I am--when I
    read this, and I do support it, but I recognize--I support it
    because I know its limitations.
        Mr. Connolly. If I could reclaim my time?
        Mr. Issa. Or course, gentleman.
        Mr. Connolly. I would respectfully say to the Chair if all
    of the information requested in this motion would in fact go to
    the Intelligence Committee, not to us, then I respectfully
    suggest let the Intelligence Committee deal with this
    resolution rather than the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
        Mr. Issa. I certainly, if I can further yield, I certainly
    agree with the Chairman that the Intelligence Committee can and
    has gotten the exact information that you and I are seeing in
    this resolution.
        So although there may be some level of redundancy of their
    getting the same information given to them pursuant to this if
    it were to come to the floor and be passed, I would submit to
    the gentleman that they would be seeing it again. They would
    look at it again. But we would not see it in this committee.
    And I just want to make that clear for the record.
        Mr. Connolly. I appreciate that, although I also appreciate
    the contortions the Chairman is going through. I yield the
    balance of my time to Ms. Manning.
        Ms. Manning. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I do
    believe this motion is privileged.
        Mr. Issa. If the gentleman further yield.
        I want to be clear, and the gentlelady's right. It is
    privileged as to this committee, which is why we are
    considering it. It is not privileged to the floor, it does
    not--we are acting. So there is no requirement that this be
    considered by the whole House. But we are acting.
        If we did not act, if we did not hold this today, based on
    the number of days, then it would automatically go to the
    floor. And that is one of the reasons that, as we all know here
    in the Committee, we have statutory responsibility to consider
    these and either reject or accept. But regardless, the
    privilege ends today at the end of our vote.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you for that clarification.
        Mr. Issa. No, thank you for that clarification.
        Mr. Connolly. I yield back.
        Mr. Issa. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further
    discussion? Seeing none--oh, the gentleman Mr. Mills is
    recognized to strike the last word.
        Mr. Mills. While I do appreciate my colleagues' comments
    regarding the fact that we want to support nothing more than a
    Ukrainian success, I note that this--actually just a resolution
    that is asking for any type of documentation indicating whether
    armed forces, United States Armed Forces, are involved in a
    conflict.
        So I would ask under with AUMF do we have such authority of
    use of military force that would be a privileged and capable
    source that would even enable such a thing to allow our soft
    assets to be in country?
        Now, I just spent the last 2 days with ARSOF and with with
    USASOC. And while I understand what their primary role is in
    training up the Ukrainian ranger forces, all this is simply
    saying is, is that they're requesting information if we were to
    use any type of military force in Ukraine, current or future.
        And so we talk about oversight, we talk about the ideas of
    not allowing continual mission creep, which I have been a part
    of, given the fact that I spent over 7 years of my life in
    Iraq, over 3 years of my life in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Pakistan,
    Northern Somalia. Been blown up twice.
        I can tell you, mission creep is something that does exist.
    And in many cases, the authorities which Congress has under
    Article 1 is sometimes surpassed because of the past AUMFs,
    like 1901, 1902.
        But I would again just make the note that this is not
    preventing support to Ukraine. This is not empowering Putin.
    This is simply an inquiry for oversight by the President, or I
    should say request by Congress for the President and the
    Secretary of Defense to provide a line of questioning or a
    reasonable amount of information on if we are deploying
    currently or in the future military forces.
        So again, I ask my colleagues, can you please tell me why
    would oppose the idea when there is no AUMF in place or any
    current authorization, whether that be Title 10 or a 333 under
    the armed services that this would actually be an issue?
        I yield back.
        Mr. Issa. Would the gentleman yield briefly? You know, as
    someone who, you have spent so much time, you are aware of
    the--how we color various forces.
        This resolution of inquiry actually does not designate
    whether they are under Title 10 combatants, which you and I
    know the AUMF would be required for. But in fact includes that
    the report to Congress, that it would include individuals who
    are there strictly to inventory systems or even potentially
    technical assistance.
        Mr. Mills. And if the gentleman would. I am fully in
    agreement with the idea if we are talking about members who are
    actually at the embassy who are there for accountability and
    oversight structures and functions.
        Then a simple inquiry like this would only just provide a
    report to say we have ten members who are at the embassy who
    are actually providing accountability oversight for the
    following things. It is still just an informational thing for
    Congress to have the necessary oversight.
        And so I agree with you, I am not explaining that it is a
    Title 10 or a 333 type of movement. I am just simply saying
    that I do not understand why would oppose the idea of just
    simply saying hey Congress, we have 15 people in who are
    logisticians who are looking at the following things. I think
    that that is a good thing for us to know here in Congress.
        With that I yield back.
        Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. Any further discussion?
    The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Self. As a military planner for well over a decade, I
    have--and I am not privy to your intelligence committee
    information. But I think that this linking of military
    assistance in actually the same sentence for forces makes this
    problematic because military assistance can include operational
    planning and military forces. So I would just caution us to--
    and I think I am agreeing with Mr. Mills here, that we need
    some explanatory limiting of this resolution to make sure what
    we are discussing here is the resource support, not operational
    or combat unit support. So I would ask us to clean up the
    language here simply so that we do not get into the
    intelligence community information that we do not have. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. There being no further
    discussion of the resolution, the committee will move to
    consideration of amendments. Does any member offer an
    amendment?
        There being no amendments, I move that the committee report
    House Resolution 300 to the House with a favorable
    recommendation.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        Any opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
        Ms. Manning. Mr. Chair, I ask for a recorded vote.
        Mr. Issa. A roll call vote being requested. Pursuant to the
    chair's previous announcement, the vote will be postponed. We
    now stand at a very short recess.
        [Recess.]
        Chairman McCaul [presiding]. The committee will come to
    order. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 1690, To
    authorize the Secretary of State to negotiate regional
    immigration agreements, and for other purposes. The bill was
    circulated in advance. The clerk shall designate the bill.
        [The Bill H.R. 1690 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Clerk. H.R. 1690, a bill to authorize Secretary of
    State to negotiate regional immigration agreements, and for
    other purposes.
        Chairman McCaul. Without objection, first reading of the
    bill is dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to
    amendment at any point. Without objection, the McCaul Amendment
    in the nature of a substitute, No. 40, circulated to members in
    advance shall be considered as read and will be treated as
    original text for purposes of the amendment.
        [The Amendment offered by Mr. McCaul follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman McCaul. I now recognize myself for an opening
    statement. I have dealt with this issue well before Congress
    when I worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Texas. Western
    districts had from San Antonio to El Paso, the border, chief of
    counterterrorism and national security.
        In Congress, I chaired the Homeland Security Committee for
    three terms. And in my judgment, I have never seen this border
    more wide open and out of operational control as the Chief
    Border Patrol Officer, Mr. Ortiz, testified to that we no
    longer have operational control of the border. In fact, we have
    ceded it to the cartels.
        And I think it is very simple, the cause and effect, why
    are we in the situation we are in today? And this is not my
    words. It is from Border Patrol specifically because on day
    one, the Biden Administration rescinded the migrant protection
    protocols otherwise known as Remain in Mexico.
        This program was actually working because they had to
    remain in Mexico pending their asylum claims. The very first
    bill I ever introduced in Congress was to end catch-and-
    release, and that was 20 years ago. But here we are today and
    the same policy there.
        Why? Because when migrant protection protocols were
    rescinded, it allowed migrants to apply and stay in the United
    States. Since we do not have detention space that is adequate,
    they are released into our society. And we saw these numbers
    dramatically decline.
        And I even talked to the Secretary of State about various
    other policies dealing with Haiti or Venezuela. When we do
    this, it works because the main magnet or driver is the
    expectation of political asylum even though only 15 percent of
    those claims are actually truly political. I do not have to go
    into all the numbers, but we do have a humanitarian crisis of
    generational proportions.
        The Federal Government's job is to secure our borders, air,
    land, and sea. And unfortunately, that is not happening. And it
    is not me saying this. It is Border Patrol saying this.
        We have had 5 million encounters at our border since this
    Administration came into office. And most sadly, we have had
    100,000 Americans die from fentanyls. They are pouring into
    this country, precursors coming from China, and killing our
    young people.
        My son went to a funeral last Sunday. His best friend died
    because he took something he thought was Xanax and it was laced
    with fentanyl and he never woke up. My oldest daughter has five
    of her friends that are now buried because of fentanyls.
        Beyond that, we had 98 suspected terrorists who attempted
    to enter the homeland just last year alone. That is dangerous.
    We have had 12,000 criminals attempt to enter last year, 1,000
    with assault-related charges and 62 homicide-related.
        Sadly, many of these migrants do not make the dangerous
    journey because it is so dangerous. Women and children that die
    on the dangerous trek up. But even when they get in the country
    in my home State of Texas, we found an abandoned tractor
    trailer with, quote-unquote, ``stacks of bodies'' abandoned by
    the human smugglers and dying from an awful death of
    suffocation and heat.
        One recission, one stroke of the pen rescinding the Remain
    in Mexico policy was a direct cause and effect of the chaos we
    are seeing at our southern border. Again, do not take my word
    for it even though I have had a lot of experience on this
    issue. This comes directly from our Border Patrol that live
    this nightmare day in and day out.
        And that is why I introduce this legislation because
    whatever you want to say about the prior Administration, and I
    have told the Secretary of Homeland this, you can call it
    whatever you want. You do not have to have President Trump's
    name on this. But the policy was, in fact, working.
        We tried to fix this problem for many years without
    success. I think now is the time. This legislation will push
    the State Department to renegotiate the asylum cooperation
    agreements which prohibit migrants who travel through any
    countries with asylum agreements from eligibility.
        This policy was extremely effective in the prior
    Administration. And reinstating it will give a proven solution
    to reducing the crisis. By mandating the Secretary of State to
    reenter MPP and ACA, this bill bolsters the work being done on
    asylum reform and border security in both House Judiciary
    Committee, and House Homeland Security where I have been this
    morning.
        We are also working with the Appropriations Committee to
    ensure the Administration complies with the legislation. As
    other committees pass border-related legislation, I would
    encourage this Administration to work with Congress, to
    reimplement MPP and other successful measures proven to secure
    operational control of our border and put an end to this
    generational crisis. I think, Mr. Ranking Member, that this
    shouldn't be a partisan issue.
        It is an American issue. When I chaired Homeland Security,
    we passed a lot of border bills that were bipartisan. And I
    think this committee exercising its jurisdiction here has an
    opportunity to do the same.
        And I have had these conversations with very high ranking
    officials in this Administration. I think they realize that the
    policy does work. It is just we have a political problem with
    it.
        So I would like to challenge my colleagues to put aside our
    partisan differences and let's reinstitute a policy that was,
    in fact, working. And with that, if there is any further
    discussion, I recognize the ranking member, Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I guess I
    fundamentally take issue with the fact that the previous policy
    was pristine and working. It was racist.
        President Trump referred to Haitian immigrants and allowing
    them into the country, quote, ``they all have AIDS.'' He
    referred to Mexican immigrants as they are not sending their
    best people into the United States. He had a Muslim ban.
        And the Return to Mexico policy may seem a successful
    policy to the chair. But ask those who return to Mexico the
    risks they suffer in terms of extortion and kidnaping and rape
    and risk to their families with an indefinite period of
    detention in Mexico because we have chosen to close our borders
    with respect to asylum seekers, creating a backlog that is
    anything but successful and anything but humanitarian. I oppose
    H.R. 1690.
        It is clear we have a strong and divergent opinion about
    improving our imperfect immigration process and how best to
    respond to a regional migration crisis that has surged since
    the pandemic to numbers not seen in a long time. This measure
    seeks to reinitiate processes introduced under President Trump.
    They do not solve the challenges we face as I indicated.
        The U.S. suspended and initiated the process to terminate
    asylum cooperative agreements with El Salvador, Guatemala, and
    Honduras back in 2021 in favor of creating a comprehensive
    regional framework to address the root causes of migration,
    manage migration flows, and expand legal pathways for
    protection and opportunity here and in the region. Why I
    believe we must protect our borders absolutely and enforce laws
    regarding irregular migration, the United States is also
    committed to a constructive agenda which can provide safe and
    orderly processing of those who arrive at our border and
    especially those seeking protective asylum. I believe we can
    achieve that outcome not by using sticks but instead by
    collaborating across the region to address the root causes of
    forced displacement and irregular migration, including by
    combating corruption and impunity, upholding or obligations to
    protect refugees, partnering to promote opportunity and
    prosperity for people and communities, trying to fight back the
    scourge of gangs and especially those who are most vulnerable
    all across the region.
        I believe in multilateral solutions to complex challenges.
    The Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection from
    the Summit of the Americas which included proposals for
    collaborative problem solving from countries in the region is a
    strong signal that if we are concerned about the stability of
    the region, we can and should spend our time brokering new
    partnerships and creating policies which open up possibilities
    for economic stability where people live, protect, respect, and
    uphold human rights. I oppose the measure before us for these
    and other reasons and urge my colleagues to reject it. And I
    yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Is there any further
    discussion on the bill. Mrs. Young Kim is recognized.
        Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly
    support H.R. 1690, the Orderly Requirements Designed to Enforce
    and Regulation Latin American Border Act. We have a crisis on
    our southern border.
        As an immigrant and mother of four, hearing stories of
    migrants losing their lives making the dangerous journey to our
    southern border breaks my heart. Since President Biden took
    office, illegal border crossings have tripled. And migrant
    deaths at the southern border continue to rise.
        The International Organization for Migration has labeled
    this land crossing the deadliest in the world. I visited the
    southern border three times. And I heard directly from border
    patrol agents that they are overwhelmed and that the spike in
    migrants crossing the southern border is hurting their ability
    to stop the trafficking of fentanyl.
        In 2022, 60 percent of fentanyl seized by CBP came from
    ports of entry in San Diego and Imperial Counties in Southern
    California near my district. Fentanyl is now a leading cause of
    death for Americans ages 18 through 49 and behind one in every
    five youth deaths in California. This crisis is directly
    hurting my constituents.
        There is nothing compassionate, humane, or fair about what
    we are seeing from the Biden Administration's policies,
    including terminating the asylum cooperative agreements or the
    Remain in Mexico policy. The Administration needs to come back
    to the table and secure the border now. They can do so by
    working with us on this legislation which authorizes the
    Secretary of State to reenter into asylum cooperative
    agreements which helped us keep the border under control in
    previous Administration.
        So I want to thank Chairman McCaul for introducing this
    bill. I strongly support it, and I ask my colleagues to support
    the bill as well. And I yield the balance of my time.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields. Any further
    discussion on the bill? Mr. Cicilline is recognized.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in
    opposition to H.R. 1690 and associate myself with the remarks
    of Mr. Connolly. But I just think it is an important time to
    remind everyone on this committee that the asylum system of the
    United States was once described as the crown jewel of
    America's humanitarian effort by the Evangelical community in
    this country.
        It is something that we should continue to be proud of as a
    refuge for those fleeing persecution and famine and war and has
    always been an example to the world of what America does to
    those in desperate need. I am fearful that if we were to pass
    1690 as it is drafted, it would not only really violate that
    long tradition of America being a place that welcomes people
    who are seeking asylum. And there are deficiencies.
        Look, we have to invest a lot more so there is an orderly,
    safe, humane process for consideration. But we ought not shred
    our asylum system by taking the most fundamental part of it
    that America will accept you, welcome you, and then adjudicate
    your claim under our law. What is equally disturbing to me is
    it seems as if we are creating a two-tier system of justice or
    for asylum.
        If you come from certain countries, you can be removed to
    Mexico and wait however long it takes which can pose as Mr.
    Connolly said lots of danger to those who are seeking asylum
    and fleeing terror or fear, persecution or violence. But if you
    are an asylum seeker from another part of the world, you go
    through our regular asylum system. That seems to me a terrible
    message that we will give certain people who have legitimate
    asylum claims one treatment and other people a different
    treatment. And that is mostly because of our failure to be able
    to process people in a fair, humane, and expeditious way.
        So I think it is a terrible bill. It saddens me to say that
    because I have deep respect for the chairman. But I think this
    does violence to a long tradition that has made us admired by
    the world because of the way we have been a refuge for people
    who are fleeing some of the most unspeakable violence. And so I
    urge my colleagues to vote no.
        Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield for----
        Mr. Cicilline. And I yield the balance of my time to Mr.
    Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Is it my friend's understanding that under
    this so-called successful policy that worked that the number of
    refugees allowed into the United States plummeted in a 4-year
    period from 50,000 to 15,000? Is that my friend's
    understanding?
        Mr. Cicilline. Yes, I believe that is correct, Mr.
    Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. And that would seem to fly in the face of
    what you talked about in terms of the jewel in the crown,
    something that you could hold up to the rest of the world as a
    beacon as something to be emulated and respected.
        Mr. Cicilline. Yes, in fact, Mr. Connolly, as you, I know,
    recognize, we have a neighbor to the north in Canada whose
    Prime Minister has said we welcome refugees and those willing
    to come to Canada because we recognize you will add
    tremendously to our economy, to our growth, to the success of
    Canada. And they are literally begging people to come. So I
    think it runs counter to good economic policy, good social
    policy. But most importantly, we have that big statue in New
    York Harbor that is inscribed with those words.
        And it is something that we have always held up and I think
    had great pride in as we should. And yes, it needs to be fixed.
    Yes, we need additional resources. Yes, we have to be sure that
    people are processed properly. But to export or responsibility
    or our privilege really of being this great humanitarian force
    in the world and compel people to remain in another country
    while we get our act in order is a terrible message.
        Mr. Connolly. And if I could ask another question, I mean,
    to your last point. So this great program that worked so well,
    traditionally if you apply for asylum and you are granted
    consideration of your application, you can within 150 days
    apply for a job in the United States pending your approval of
    asylum status. Is that your understanding?
        Mr. Cicilline. That is correct, Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. And is it not true that under the Trump
    Administration, they extended that 150 days to a year or more,
    making it very difficult for people in an asylum status or
    pending asylum status in the United States to, in fact, have
    gainful employment while they wait for the adjudication of
    their application?
        Mr. Cicilline. That is correct.
        Mr. Connolly. And that is supposed to be an improvement, I
    understand. I thank my friend for yielding.
        Mr. Cicilline. I thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Any further
    discussion on the bill? Mr. Mills is recognized.
        Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find it funny that my
    colleagues want to talk about our neighbors to the north and
    the fact that they accept refugees. But they do not talk about
    the fact that they are illegal or legal which is a really big
    and pressing issue that we need to be discussing here.
        We talk about there is such great improvement on our
    borders. Well, I think the numbers speak quite differently. I
    am looking at CBP.gov. And when I am looking through the
    numbers here, it is surprising to me that in 2020 it says
    458,000, in 2021, 1.7, in 2022, 2.4.
        And we are already at 1.3 going into 2023. It is
    interesting to me that we are also not talking about the fact
    that in 2018 we had our Mexican cartels who are making 500
    million dollars a year in revenue. And last year, that exceeded
    up to 13 billion of which almost 50 percent was in human child
    and women sex trafficking.
        So it is just ironic to me that we are talking about that
    we have somehow resolved the situation or talking about our
    immigration as if it is now improved when, in fact, it has
    gotten exponentially worse. And the numbers are there to prove
    it. So I will be happy to yield back to my colleague if he
    would like to explain to me how things have gotten so much
    better when the numbers from CBP and from everyone is showing
    quite the contrary.
        Mr. Cicilline. Are you asking me--oh, yes. Thank you for
    yielding. Look I think there is no question if you look at what
    is happening around the world. It should surprise no one that
    there are a greater number of people seeking refuge or asylum
    in the United States.
        You look at the unrest and war that exists in many parts of
    the world. And so I take those numbers to be opportunities,
    opportunities to process people, to carefully consider their
    claims for asylum, to determine if they are valid, and if so,
    to grant them asylum. That is the same thing the Canadians do.
        And we used to do it, and we ought to continue to do it.
    But we need to devote resources to do it. I think suggesting
    that the real answer is to export our responsibility to do that
    to another country or to make asylum seeking so difficult
    because you cannot work and you must stay in Mexico that people
    will not apply for it is not the answer. Remember people who
    are seeking a asylum are making a claim that they are in fear
    of imminent harm or death, that they are subjected to torture
    or violence or persecution----
        [Simultaneous speaking.]
        Mr. Mills. I reclaim my time. Sir, I reclaim my time.
        Mr. Cicilline. OK. I thought you would.
        Mr. Mills. The bottom line is that is absolutely untrue. We
    are seeing where the majority of people who are crossing our
    borders are single adults, not the women and children that the
    Democrats try to paint that is refugees seeking asylum. And not
    only this, but if it is seeking asylum, why wouldn't you go to
    the next safe harbor which would be the next country over as
    opposed to going five and six seven countries just to try and
    cross into America?
        Let's also look at the facts here. You are still ignoring
    the amount of money and revenue that has been increased as a
    result of the drug cartels. You are still ignoring the 70,000-
    plus people who are dying from Fentanyl overdoses in America.
        You are still ignoring the fact that we had a Secretary
    Mayorkas who said that our borders were not open yet our
    numbers are contrary to every one of those beliefs. We are
    sitting here and you are trying to argue the fact that somehow
    the flooding of illegal immigration is somehow beneficial to
    America. But I think economically we would actually see
    something very different.
        And from a criminality perspective and from the amount of
    overdoses of death, I think that it is very clear that this is
    not to the benefit of Americans. And so it is just absolutely
    absurd to me that we are trying to argue the fact. We are not
    saying that we are not a nation of immigrants.
        We are a nation of legal migration. We are a nation that
    has respected our laws and our sovereignty. And so to sit here
    and act as if violations of sovereignty, porous borders, and a
    continuation of building up the drug cartels is absolutely
    abhorrent. And so I am absolutely in support of stronger
    restrictions when it comes to our borders and I am in absolute
    support of anything which will prevent what we are seeing with
    the atrocities that is occurring. With that, I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further
    discussion on the bill? Mr. Castro is recognized.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman. I strongly oppose this
    bill. I believe that the United States must play a vital role
    in the western hemisphere's shared challenge of forced
    migration.
        But this bill does not do that. In fact, the approach in
    this bill is an out of sight, out of mind one. This bill does
    not address, for example, the root causes of migration.
        It does not acknowledge the fact that countries in the
    western hemisphere that are much smaller than the United States
    already host hundreds of thousands of migrants themselves. And
    this bill goes beyond the Trump Administration, and Stephen
    Miller's own policy that was Remain in Mexico. For example,
    that policy recognized that we cannot send unaccompanied minors
    who seek asylum to Mexico where they have no family and are at
    serious risk.
        That policy made exemptions for people who did not speak
    Spanish, often Indigenous communities, and wouldn't be able to
    remain in Mexico because of that. So the is bill does neither
    of those things. My reading of the bill also turns up a very
    strange irony.
        And I believe Mr. Mills made the point. His question or his
    critique was that people will often cross multiple countries
    without applying for asylum in those countries. But my reading
    of the bill is that this treats people even who may have not
    touched any of those countries, never come through Mexico,
    people that came by water from Cuba, for example, or even in my
    reading of the bill, people that may have come to the northern
    border, dumps them all back in Mexico when they were never in
    Mexico.
        Or the bill also addresses Guatemala, for example. That is
    a major hole in this piece of legislation as far as I can tell.
    And it would ask those fleeing countries like Cuba, Nicaragua,
    and Venezuela to first apply for asylum in Guatemala, Honduras,
    and El Salvador.
        Please realize that the size of the combined economies of
    those three countries is 0.6 percent of that of the United
    States. And the four countries outlined are already dealing
    with high levels of violence and insecurity that threaten their
    own civilians. So how are they supposed to provide ample
    protection to even more people, in other words, to these
    migrants?
        They do not have the capability or capacity to give
    individuals a fair hearing. And this bill does nothing to help
    them improve these capabilities. And what the bill describes as
    burden-sharing is not burden-sharing.
        It does not recognize almost any role for the United States
    except for loading people on planes. The United States is a
    country of 350 million with the world's largest economy and a
    proud tradition of accepting refugees, asylum seekers, and
    immigrants. It would put migrants in an uncertain dangerous
    situation as Mr. Cicilline said and would transfer our
    responsibilities to countries that have minimal resources.
        The point was also made earlier about the number of
    crossings. Understand that when you take people who are seeking
    asylum in the United States, make it to the United States, and
    then you dump them back in Mexico, you are enriching the very
    dangerous cartels who we are talking about. In other words, you
    are subjecting these folks to danger, the migrants to danger,
    and also making more money for the cartels because they are
    trying to get them back again. And it also increases those
    numbers.
        I understand, Chairman McCaul, your concern and would be
    happy to work with you and with my colleagues across the aisle
    on legislation that would meaningfully address migration in our
    hemisphere. But I believe that this bill is harmful,
    counterproductive, and turns our back on those fleeing
    oppression. And for that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote
    no. I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Any further
    discussion on the bill? Mr. Wilson is recognized.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I support each of
    the measures that we're addressing, this inexcusable crisis at
    our southern border, and I particularly am grateful for the
    leadership of Chairman Mike McCaul as he's protecting American
    families.
        As an original of the ORDER Act to facilitate stronger
    border policy that works for the American people this bill
    supports the Judiciary border bill and directs the President to
    return to proven border practices.
        The Biden Administration has failed on our southern border
    and this is a step in the right direction. We're turning to the
    migrant protection protocols and asylum cooperative agreements
    that will limit the strain of illegal immigration on our
    citizens and contribute to the safety of the migrants and deny
    the cartels the phenomenal funds that they receive and also
    deny the Chinese Communist Party the ability to bring fentanyl
    into our country, which kills almost a hundred thousand people
    a year.
        And I have practiced immigration law prior to coming to
    Congress and it's always been inspiring to me to have the
    opportunity to see people coming to America to achieve
    citizenship legally. But it's just absolutely absurd and
    dangerous to see the efforts to recruit illegal aliens to come
    to our country.
        In fact, I've been recently within the last 2 years to Del
    Rio and Texas. I've previously been to San Diego. I've been to
    Del Rio previously.
        When I was there it was shocking to me when I asked how
    many people on the terrorist watch list had crossed the persons
    were really nice about it but they said, hey, we cannot tell
    you--it's classified.
        And so I want to give credit to Chairman McCaul and others.
    We did not stop. Every meeting we would ask how many people on
    the terrorist watch list have crossed and we now know over 200.
        Putting that in perspective, it only takes one person on
    the terrorist watch list to achieve their goal of mass murder.
    These people are highly educated, highly trained, well skilled
    mass murderers and I truly believe and I--the Biden
    Administration--it's just shameful to put American families at
    risk.
        American families have never been at greater risk of attack
    in their homes than today because of the Biden policies of an
    open border. An attack can occur any second based on the
    inexcusable recruiting of illegal aliens to include persons who
    are on the terrorist watch list to come to the United States.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
        Any further discussion on the bill?
        Ms. Jacobs is recognized.
        Ms. Jacobs. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I'm opposed to this bill. We talk a lot in this committee
    about how to restore America's reputation on the world stage
    and, let's be clear, doing that starts here at home.
        It starts with living our values in everything we do, even
    when it's hard or seems politically charged, and it starts with
    treating people who are fighting for their lives with dignity,
    respect, and humanity.
        But this bill before us, H.R. 6090, does none of these
    things and instead it takes us down a dark path by codifying
    the harmful remain in Mexico policy.
        I represent San Diego, a proud border community. So I can
    tell you firsthand the border isn't overrun. We do not have an
    open border. In fact, San Diego is one of the safest cities in
    the entire country.
        But continuing to militarize the border and spew xenophobic
    rhetoric because it's an election year does nothing to address
    the real problems of our immigration system.
        There's no doubt about it. We need comprehensive proactive
    immigration reform. But that means addressing the root causes
    of violence and poverty in the Northern Triangle. It means
    reducing our immigration court backlog. It means creating more
    legal pathways so that the only option we are leaving people
    isn't to show up and try and seek asylum.
        But instead of working on solutions, this bill will
    intensify the problems of our immigration system. It will send
    asylum seekers who've traveled hundreds or thousands of miles
    carrying little more than the shirt on their back and children
    in tow back to face risk of kidnapping, extortion, rape, and
    other abuses in Mexico.
        Put yourself in their shoes. Think about the level of
    danger and fear you must be facing to be willing to make this
    scary journey with your kids.
        Think about how hard you must be hoping and willing for a
    better life in America and then think about making it to
    America against all odds just to be handed what amounts to be a
    death sentence when you're sent back into danger without the
    resources to make your case for asylum.
        Seeking asylum under both domestic and international law is
    legal. We can do so much better than this bill. We can live up
    to our values and the founding of our country and we can keep
    Americans safe. But not like this, not with this bill.
        So I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 6090. I yield
    back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
        Any further discussion on the bill?
        Mr. Moran is recognized.
        Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to touch on
    a few things.
        Last week--I'm on the Judiciary Committee--we took 15 hours
    to go through a markup on a comprehensive border and
    immigration bill. I know there's some work to be done also by
    the Homeland Security Committee.
        Those are interrelated issues. We cannot divorce one from
    the other. In fact, Foreign Affairs Committee has a very
    important piece and I believe this is a very important piece to
    our overall immigration and border security strategy. I support
    this amendment in the nature of the substitute to H.R. 1690 and
    for a number of reasons.
        I just heard my colleagues say, quote, ``We do not have an
    open border.'' I do not know what else we need to have as
    evidence to indicate that we have an open border other than
    what we have seen in the past 2 years.
        I'm astounded by the numbers as we look at them where we
    run from the hundreds of thousands coming across in a year to
    millions coming across over a year--a year's period of time.
    I've been to El Paso and, in fact, in my first Judiciary
    Committee hearing where we had the El Paso County judge sitting
    in front of us saying the same thing--we do not have a problem.
    We take care of everybody that comes across the border and
    there's no overrun at all.
        And less than a month later we see throngs and hordes of
    individuals that are there at the gate pushing through, making
    sure that they try to get into the United States.
        I do not fault anybody from--for trying to get into the
    United States for a better life. But, simply, the United States
    cannot offer that to others around the world until we take care
    of our own domestic policy, until we secure our own borders,
    until we ensure that our own sovereignty is taken care of and
    without secure borders, without policies in place that ensure
    that the rule of law is enforced day in and day out and protect
    those that are already here we cannot offer the greatness of
    America to the rest of the world. We simply cannot do that, or
    it dilutes it for everyone and that's what we have seen.
        The Democrats have talked about burden sharing. I heard one
    of my Democratic friends talk about the United States needs to
    burden share more because these other countries cannot do
    that--do that much because they're smaller.
        I think it's safe to say that the burden that the American
    taxpayer is carrying these days is well more than what it
    should--what he or she should be carrying.
        I think that's evidenced by the fact that as you see some
    of these illegal aliens being moved to northern States, these
    northern liberal mayors are besought and beside themselves
    because they cannot take care of tens of thousands of
    immigrants that are now in their cities, where States like my
    own in Texas we're having to deal with millions of immigrants
    in our cities, overrunning our counties on a day to day basis.
        That committee hearing last week brought out some
    astounding facts as well that undergird why this particular
    bill is important to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
        As I sat in Judiciary, one of the things that we heard over
    and over again was about unaccompanied minors and about the
    atrocities that are happening to unaccompanied minors where
    before the Biden Administration took over we were seeing about
    30,000 a year come across our borders.
        Now we're dealing with over the past few years almost
    150,000 per year in 2021 and 2022 and now in 2023 70,000
    already this year to surpass the numbers that we saw in the
    past 2 years. Eighty-five thousand of those unaccompanied
    children are unaccounted for currently by the Biden
    Administration.
        If we cannot account for the children that are coming
    across because of our open border policies then how can we
    continue to press for an open asylum policy, which is
    effectively what the Biden Administration has advocated for.
    That's what I hear my friends on the left advocating for as
    well, that we want--that they want to see anyone be able to
    seek asylum here in the United States and expanding that
    definition and expanding the interpretation of who actually
    qualifies under asylum.
        In fact, we need to go back to a more strict definition. We
    need to go back to more strict enforcement of the policies.
    This bill does that and it does that in a number of ways that
    we talked about last week, again, in Judiciary and that is why
    do not we detain or return those that are seeking those asylum
    claims.
        I bet if we quit just releasing those folks into the wild
    without knowing where they're going to come back--when or where
    and how and whether or not they will ever come back for a court
    hearing--that if they are returned back to Mexico or remain in
    Mexico pending the decision for their asylum case or they're
    returned to their home country or they're detained in a
    facility, which we will have room for if we can enforce our
    other border policies, then I bet you those asylum claims will
    be reduced and we'll actually see the true asylum claims.
        I was privileged to be part of bringing a group over. I see
    my time waning so I'm going to stop and not tell that story.
    But I'll say, Mr. Chairman, thank you for bringing this bill. I
    support it. We need to get this passed. I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
        Any further discussion on the bill?
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove is recognized.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I have to
    respectfully oppose this bill.
        What we are facing at our southern border is a crisis of
    people in need. Migrants who are coming to the United States
    are choosing to leave their families, uproot their lives, and
    make a treacherous journey with no guarantee that they'll reach
    safety or that they will remain alive.
        They are doing this not because they want to but because
    they have no choice, and countries in Latin America and the
    Caribbean have endured massive stressors and upheaval over the
    past few years as the pandemic exacerbated economic
    instability, political repression, and food insecurity
    throughout the region.
        Haiti is facing its most severe political and security
    crisis in decades. Ortega has consolidated his autocratic rule
    in Nicaragua. Bukele has jailed 2 percent of the adult
    population in El Salvador. Venezuela is suffering one of the
    worst humanitarian crises in the region's history.
        I could go on and on and on. Yet, under Trump the United
    States was disengaged, it was indifferent, and missing in
    action as these developments were unfolding. It was also
    punitive and xenophobic.
        We refuse to understand that Latin America's problems are
    our problems--their prosperity is our prosperity, and now as
    people come to seek safe haven at our border this bill shirks
    our responsibility to process these migrants with humanity and
    dignity by asking the very countries people are fleeing to host
    them for us.
        That is just immoral and it is pernicious. I just have to
    add that, you know, Americans are not at risk because of
    Mexico.
        Americans are at risk because they're being denied the
    right to vote, because they're being denied the right to access
    because they're being shot at school by other Americans.
        That's what's putting Americans at risk. Immigration reform
    is critical but we cannot create new policies that further
    demonize brown migrants with maybe the exception of Cuba
    because our feelings are still hurt from years ago.
        We have to come up with immigration reform that is
    humanitarian, that is diplomatic, and that is equal and we do
    not do that. You know, some of the comments that have been made
    in this hearing have been incredibly demoralizing and
    dehumanizing.
        We are not releasing people into the wild. They are not
    animals. We are trying to find ways to be thoughtful with how
    we are addressing immigration reform and policies that keep
    people alive.
        And so with that, I just have to urge my colleagues to vote
    no.
        Mr. Connolly. Will my friend yield?
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Yes.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank--I want to thank her for her
    observation and just underscore maybe that very last point you
    made. We're talking about human beings. When we use terms like
    illegal aliens we objectify human beings, these human beings
    seeking a better future and overwhelmingly because the
    situation in their home countries has become untenable.
        What mother wants her kids to be recruited by a violent
    gang and risk death or imprisonment if there's an option--some
    better option? It motivates the very basic nature of being a
    parent.
        So treating people with respect, including how we describe
    them at this committee, how we verbally describe this issue and
    the people involved in it, matters and the more we can at least
    take cognizance of and respect the humanity that's at stake
    here I think the better off all of us would be served and the
    debate would be the richer for it.
        I thank my friend for bringing that very much to the
    forefront of our attention.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
        Any further discussion? Mr. Self is recognized.
        Mr. Self. A little bit of history. Back in 1986 we
    conflated legal immigration and illegal immigration. President
    Reagan agreed to some limited amnesty in exchange for securing
    the border.
        The illegal amnesty happened. Securing the border did not.
    From what I hear across the aisle we're asking to do the same
    thing. Several months ago--many months ago now I was on the
    border watching a very sophisticated operation. Little pickups
    would drop off three or four people.
        Two rafts would make trips across the river bringing them
    across. The Texas National Guard would take them up out of the
    rafts, turn them over to the border control. They would put
    their wristbands on the ground because they had been delivered,
    which the word on the wristband was delivery. So they paid
    $6,000, $8,000 to be delivered across.
        There was an interview with one of the illegal immigrants
    in Spanish, of course, across--through an interpreter that
    there are actually social media platforms that tell you where
    to go and they tell you where you will cross the border.
        So once you get across the border how are they repaying
    that $6,000, $8,000, $10,000? We have indentured servitude in
    America today because we do not have a secure border.
        We need the rule of law on the border. We do not need more
    money. We simply need the policy of this Administration to be
    to enforce the laws that we have on the books.
        I heard the phrase missing in action recently. We do have
    someone missing in action. It's called the border czar. We have
    a border czar.
        The border czar, I believe, has been to the border once
    recently when pressure was put on and I will tell you from my
    military experience that if you're going to lead on anything,
    which the borders are--you're supposed to lead--you should be
    there.
        Presence is important if you're going to lead anything for
    the Administration. We have a missing in action borders czar.
        Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
        Any further discussion on the bill?
        There being no further discussion, the committee will move
    to consideration of amendments. Does any member wish to offer
    an amendment?
        Mr. Castro is recognized.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman. I have an amendment at the
    desk. I think it's Castro amendment No. 2.
        Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
    Clerk will report the amendment. Clerk will report the
    amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 1690 offered by Mr. Castro.
        Chairman McCaul. Without objection further reading of the
    amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5
    minutes on his amendment.
        [The Amendment offered by Mr. Castro follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman.
        This bill calls for the Secretary of State to negotiate
    agreements with Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador
    that have serious implications on how U.S. laws are applied.
        As you know, I've been candid that I usually oppose the
    actions of this Administration when it comes to negotiating
    agreements like this because I believe they attempt to solve a
    problem without actually fixing it.
        If Congress is calling on the Administration to negotiate
    these agreements they should go through full review. This
    amendment is simple. It would subject any such agreements to
    Senate ratification before they go into effect. I urge my
    colleagues to support this measure, and I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
        I oppose this amendment. Do any other members seek
    recognition?
        Mr. Moran. I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, not every agreement signed with a foreign
    government qualifies as a treaty under Article Two of the
    Constitution.
        As a leading foreign relations law textbook States, the
    executive branch, quote, ``makes many more executive agreements
    than treaties and these agreements cover a wide array of topics
    and serve many different aims,'' end quote.
        More specifically, so-called ex-ante congressional
    executive agreements are those that Congress authorizes the
    executive branch to make in advance. The idea is that the
    executive branch then negotiates and concludes the agreement
    without returning to Congress.
        This is the standard. There's nothing unique going on here.
    It's Foreign Relations Law 101. Presumably, Democrats would
    like the agreement to be a treaty for the reason that they want
    to preserve congressional authority and our ability to make
    sure the text adheres to congressional intentions.
        But here, the ORDER Act spells out exactly what the
    Secretary of State must negotiate. In other words, the content
    of the treaty is not left up to his whims. So Congress is
    already involved and it will remain involved and that is
    because under the Case-Zablocki Act the State Department must
    send us any agreements with foreign governments.
        So Congress will not be left in the dark. In short, this
    amendment is unnecessary because it does not recognize the many
    legal forms foreign agreements may take. It is unnecessary and
    I oppose it. I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
        Any further discussion on the amendment?
        There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
    on the amendment offered by Representative Castro.
        All those in favor signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed signify by saying no.
        In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        Are there any further amendments?
        Mr. Castro is recognized.
        Mr. Castro. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk,
    Castro amendment number--I believe it is No. 2.
        Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall report the amendment.
        I'm sorry.
        Mr. Castro. I'm sorry. It's No. 1, Chairman. My apologies.
        Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
    The clerk shall report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 1690 offered by Mr. Castro of Texas.
        Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
    amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5
    minutes on his amendment.
        [The Amendment offered by Mr. Castro follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman.
        I offer this amendment for consideration to reaffirm what
    many of us on both sides of the aisle know and have supported
    for many years in the past, that seeking asylum is a basic
    human right.
        This right is codified in the United States domestic law
    and in international law and commitments. Congress has also
    made clear that seeking asylum at the border, even if not at a
    designated port of arrival, is lawful. Therefore, United States
    policy must reflect these legal obligations.
        Unfortunately, over the last several years, as hostility
    toward refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants has grown in
    the United States, particularly among my colleagues across the
    aisle, the right to asylum has been chipped away at and
    endangered and this bill has the possibility of further
    fundamentally taking away the right to asylum in the United
    States.
        So I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting
    this amendment, which also helps clarify the bill.
        Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield?
        Mr. Castro. I absolutely will.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend, and I thank him for
    introducing this amendment.
        It's kind of sad that we think we need it. As Mr. Cicilline
    and I were talking about this a little bit earlier, the long
    proud tradition of America is to be that beacon on the hill,
    that one safe haven where those who suffer persecution,
    violence, can find a new home that is welcoming and they--when
    they do--when they actually seek legal status in asylum as
    refugees under our own law they are entitled to certain rights
    and a procedure and, frankly, that's been whittled away.
        And so I thank my friend for introducing this amendment. I
    will gladly support it because I think reaffirming this
    principle is absolutely necessary in the current political
    climate.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Mr. Connolly, and I'm going to yield
    to Mr. Cicilline in just a second. But you're right, the right
    to asylum is fundamentally under threat in the United States,
    which is a sad thing to say, given this Nation's history.
        I yield to Mr. Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I
    want to thank him for introducing this amendment.
        You know, we very often hear people speak about the asylum
    and refugee process as if it's not a legal process. This is a
    process that was created by Congress.
        There's a legal standard. There's a right to have that
    standard determined by an appropriate court. This is part of
    the rule of law of this country and I do think it is really,
    really important and I really beseech my Republican colleagues.
        Whatever you think about immigration, whatever you think
    about what is the right border policy, let's speak with one
    voice and say America has an asylum system and individuals have
    a right to petition for it. That determination then can be made
    by the appropriate court under the right standard and the right
    process.
        But let's not lose this moment to just reaffirm for the
    world that we're proud of our asylum and refugee system and the
    great tradition of it in this country and what it has meant to
    the world as an example and what it's meant to our country in
    terms of our extraordinary power as the greatest economic power
    in the world because of the arrival of people who have been
    fearing persecution and violence and famine and started
    companies and become great scientists and politicians and
    doctors and teachers.
        So this would be a great moment to just reassert we have a
    broad disagreement on how it should be fixed and what we need
    to do to make our immigration system work.
        But I hope there's no disagreement that fundamentally we
    respect and honor our great asylum system and I thank the
    gentleman for giving us that opportunity.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Mr. Cicilline. I yield back,
    Chairman.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
        Any further discussion on the amendment?
        Mr. Moran is recognized.
        Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This really is not a
    debate or shouldn't be debate today about whether asylum should
    be offered and this--that's not what this bill is about.
        This bill is about the process for seeking asylum and this
    amendment is not necessary. I oppose it for this reason. Under
    the existing proposed bill individuals have the right to
    petition but they just do not have the right to be released
    unmonitored into the United States while their petition is
    pending.
        One of the Democratic colleagues just mentioned this. He
    said, quote, ``The right to asylum is fundamentally under
    threat in the U.S.'' and I actually agree with that. I agree
    with that for this reason, that in the past 2 years the Biden
    Administration has diluted those that actually need asylum in
    this country by the throngs of people asserting asylum claims
    that are not rightful claims.
        We certainly need to provide the ability for folks that
    really truly need asylum to get it in this country but the
    process of how that happens is what the--what the bill was
    really focused on.
        We need to ensure that that process remains true to our
    rule of law, not to release folks out in our country before
    those asylum claims are actually vetted because then those that
    do not qualify for asylum how do we get them back?
        I was just involved in a claim by some folks that were
    fleeing Chinese oppression. The Communist Party in China
    oppressed a church over there called the Mayflower Church and
    it took years for that group to work through the process
    outside of the United States before they got authorization to
    enter the United States to escape that oppression by the
    Chinese Communist Party.
        Glad to say that in the last month all those approvals
    happened the way they needed to so they could receive the
    benefit of what America has to offer for those that are--that
    are being oppressed across this world.
        But they did it legally. They did it through a process and
    they waited outside the United States before they got
    authorization. Now they've been resettled. Glad to say they've
    been resettled in east Texas and we're welcoming them with open
    arms and we're doing so because it's the right thing for us to
    do.
        But we cannot do that in a way that is unbecoming of the
    rule of law and just unfettered to allow anybody in this
    country while their claim is being processed.
        I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
        Any further discussion?
        Ms. Manning is recognized.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I'd like to speak in favor of my colleague's amendment, and
    I'd just like to remind everyone that last week we observed
    Holocaust Remembrance Day. Members on the other side of the
    aisle were very happy to walk in the procession with those who
    had survived the Holocaust while 6 million had perished.
        How much better it would have been if we had had in place
    and asylum process that would have allowed millions to escape
    their tormentors and we could have--we could have celebrated
    with those who had survived thanks to legal--some legal asylum.
        In light of the way President Trump and many on the other
    side of the aisle demonized those who seek asylum I think it is
    more than appropriate that we offer in this bill an amendment
    to affirm that we do have a process for asylum, that it is
    legal to apply for asylum, and that it's most often not
    appropriate or feasible for people to wait in their home
    countries to apply for asylum.
        So I applaud my colleague for introducing this amendment,
    and I will be supporting it.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
        Any further discussion. Mr. Mast is recognized.
        Mr. Connolly. Could I just ask my colleague to yield for a
    minute?
        Chairman McCaul. Mr. Mast has--controls the time.
        Mr. Connolly. No. No. I was--I was asking if you would
    allow Ms. Manning to just yield to me briefly before you call--
    --
        Chairman McCaul. I'll allow for that.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair, and thank you, Ms.
    Manning.
        I just want to apply what you said about the Holocaust.
    When one goes back to the history of the 1940's, Franklin
    Delano Roosevelt had a very rigid strict immigration quota
    system, and Congress and the immigration bureau were
    unrelenting and they weren't going to make exceptions.
        He actually tried to use the quota system to get more
    Jewish refugees into the United States, knowing they were at
    incredible risk in Nazi-occupied Europe and the system did not
    allow for it.
        And your point is quite profound. Millions died because we
    wouldn't let them in because of our rules. And so it's
    something to keep in mind in terms of the humanity behind the
    rules we create or that ought to be behind the rules we create
    and that, again, human lives are at stake.
        I thank--I thank my friend for reminding us of that
    history, and thank you Mr. Chairman for accommodating.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
        The chair recognizes Mr. Mast.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        To my colleague, you just said something to keep in mind.
    Something to keep in mind right now is Americans, the American
    people, real Americans. Let's keep that in mind for a little
    while because, frankly, Mr. Cicilline, you said you are proud
    of our asylum system. I am not. There is nothing about it right
    now to be proud of. It is like Central Park: anybody can walk
    in there, it is crime-ridden, and everybody around it has to
    pay the price for that.
        That is what is going on with our system of asylum right
    now. There is nothing about it to be proud of.
        I would absolutely personally, speaking for myself, want to
    shut off the entire system of asylum right now until we have
    dealt with the program as a whole and in an appropriate manner.
        And I would give this last comparison; right? If your
    bathtub is overflowing, what is the first thing that you do if
    your bathtub is overflowing? You shut off the water. That is
    not controversial or hyperbolic to anybody. It is common sense
    that if it is overflowing you turn off the water.
        That is what is going on with our system of asylum, it is
    overflowing. It is the bathtub filling up in the United States
    of America, it is bringing crime across the entire breadth of
    our country. And the American people, the American people are
    having to pay for it.
        I yield back my time.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
        Any further discussion?
        Mr. Cicilline is recognized.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.----
        Mr. Mast. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Cicilline. No. Time was yielded to me. I have not been
    recognized.
        Mr. Mast. No, that is true. You have not been recognized.
        Mr. Cicilline. No. Time was yielded to me from Mr. Castro's
    time.
        Mr. Mast. OK. Mr. Castro is recognized. And say I yield
    my----
        Mr. Cicilline. I try. I know Mr. Mast does not want me to
    respond but I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
        Mr. Mast. I generally do not.
        Mr. Cicilline. Yes, I know that.
        Mr. Mast. I generally do not.
        Mr. Connolly. No wonder people think we are uncivil with
    that kind of observation, Mr. Mast.
        Mr. Mast. I try to be.
        Mr. Cicilline. Look, I felt the need to respond.
        First of all, I, every decision I make in my work is about
    real Americans. That is all of Americans, all the people who
    live in this country, all the people who are here in America.
        The notion that there are some real Americans that we
    should really care about, I do not, I do not know who the other
    Americans are if they are ones that some people do not think
    are real, but.
        Mr. Mast. Would you yield?
        Mr. Cicilline. No. I actually will not yield. I am happy to
    let you apologize for that term if you want.
        But the truth is, there is a fundamental disagreement
    between at least Mr. Mast and me on this question of asylum. He
    actually said he would stop asylum.
        When I think of the consequences for humanity if America
    stopped our beautiful asylum system that gave refuge to people,
    seek--you know, fleeing some of the most unspeakable,
    unimaginable violence. Think about places like Syria, and
    Myanmar, and Ukraine, and the list goes on and on. Think of
    some places in Central America. The idea that we would stop
    asylum and we somehow have compared it to overflowing bathtubs.
        When I think about the benefits of the asylum system, it is
    not just for the people who are granted asylum, we all benefit
    from the presence of these incredible people who become
    business owners, and entrepreneurs, and great scientists, and
    great lawyers, and great teachers, and CNAs, and caregivers.
    But the idea that somehow we do not benefit as a country from
    the arrival of some of the most persistent, determined,
    resilient people who have lived through, frankly, conditions
    most of us could not even imagine, but somehow it is only a
    benefit to them and America hasn't benefited or my constituents
    have not benefited from asylum seekers?
        That is a terribly sad statement for me to hear from a
    member of the U.S. Congress. Because it ignores the fundamental
    reality that our country has been made stronger, more vibrant,
    more dynamic, more powerful because of the arrival of
    immigrants, and refugees, and asylum seekers.
        And, frankly, to hear my colleagues on the other side of
    the aisle claim that this is the problem with crime in America,
    you know what the problem with crime in America is? Gun
    violence. The leading cause of death of children in America.
    And we cannot get our Republican colleagues to pass a single
    bill to do a single thing about it.
        Oh, wait. I am wrong. They are trying to abolish the ATF.
    That is the response.
        If you care about crime, you would care about gun violence.
    And the notion that you are describing the asylum system as the
    reason for crime in America is factually wrong. The vast
    majority of people coming to America are law-abiding
    individuals who make tremendous contributions. And the ones who
    commit crimes ought to be prosecuted.
        But it just defies reality to somehow assign responsibility
    for crime in America to people who are fleeing war, famine, and
    persecution, and trying to avail themselves of the asylum
    system. And it makes me sad, actually, to hear that kind of
    commentary.
        And I would like to yield to Mr. Connolly because I know he
    always has something to improve on my words.
        Mr. Connolly. Well, I think the gentleman is right. And
    where some--no one here of course--have used immigration as a
    punching bag, as sort of a catchall for all that is wrong in
    our communities or our society, and I think the gentleman from
    Rhode Island makes a really profound point. America was built
    on immigration.
        I am the grandson of an immigrant who came here, I might
    add, with very little education and no skills. And yet a
    grandson sits here as a Member of Congress.
        Immigration has been good for America. And we need more of
    it if we are going to fill the ranks of future labor forces, if
    we are going to make sure that safety, safety net commitments
    are met, and the needs of the country are addressed, and that
    we continue to grow, unlike some of our competitors who have to
    plan for actual constructions given their demographic reality.
        Reasonable immigration measures to protect the border but
    to allow for this influx of people who want to come here is in
    America's interest. And I think that is a really important
    point you make, Mr. Cicilline.
        Thank you for allowing me to underscore it.
        I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
        Any----
        Mr. Cicilline. I know it is expired, but I intend to ask
    Mr. Mast, ask you give me 1 minute. Give me 1 minute.
        Chairman McCaul. The rules are the rules. Just like with
    immigration.
        The gentleman from Florida is correct.
        Any further members seek recognition?
        Mr. Schneider. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCaul. Mr. Schneider is recognized.
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you.
        I just want to reflect on this idea of who are real
    Americans, what is immigration?
        Some of the people--well, let me start here. I am going to
    quote from the American Battlefield Trust. ``To this day Haym
    Salomon remains one of the most forgotten members of the
    founding generation.'' I do not know if anyone knows who Haym
    Salomon is. ``Yet the revolution may have failed without the
    financial support and mind of this Polish-born Jew. Still he
    remains, sadly, but a footnote in the founding of the United
    States.'' One of the great financiers of our country. We
    wouldn't have been able to fight the War of Independence
    without the support of an immigrant.
        Some of the others I might mention who sought refuge in
    this country, made a significant difference as Americans:
    Albert Einstein; Elie Wiesel; two secretaries of State, Henry
    Kissinger and Madeleine Albright; entertainers including Gloria
    Estefan, Ruth Westheimer, Andy Garcia, Mikhail Baryshnikov;
    business leaders, as my colleague Mr. Cicilline noted, Sergey
    Brin of Google, Andy Grove, Intel.
        And I want to read just a excerpt from Andy Grove's memoir
    that talks about what it means to be able to look to a nation
    like ours from a place suffering from oppression or occupation.
        Andy Groves said, ``By the time I was 20, I had lived
    through a Hungarian fascist dictatorship, German military
    occupation, the Nazi's Final Solution, the siege of Budapest by
    the Soviet Red Army, a period of chaotic democracy in the years
    immediately after the war, a variety of repressive communist
    regimes, and a popular uprising that was put down at gunpoint
    where many young people were killed, countless others were
    interned. Some 200,000 Hungarians escaped to the West. I was
    one of them.''
        Andy Grove came to this country. He founded a company
    called Intel, one of the great American companies that we
    celebrate, that we need to succeed into the future. This
    country is stronger because people from around the world look
    to who we are as a Nation, the promise that America and the
    United States has held out for so many from so many places. And
    those people who come here make us stronger, make our economy
    stronger, make our Nation better.
        We need to reform our immigration laws. We need border
    security. There is no question about that. What we need is
    comprehensive immigration reform, and we have not been able to
    have it because too many people, especially on the other side
    of the aisle, are unwilling to work with us to get it done.
        I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
        Any further discussion?
        There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
    on the amendment offered by Representative Castro, Number 1.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, signify by saying no.
        In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote. A
    recorded vote.
        Chairman McCaul. A recorded vote has been called for, a
    roll call vote has been requested.
        Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote
    will be postponed.
        I will remind members we will be voting at 1:30 in the
    interests of time.
        Any further amendments?
        Mr. Castro. I have got an amendment at the desk, Chairman.
        [The Amendment offered by Mr. Castro follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
        Mr. Castro. Castro Amendment Number 8.
        Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute.
        Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
    amendment is dispensed with.
        The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman.
        I have this amendment which would exclude three categories
    of individuals from the bill's provisions:
        First, the disabled; second, religious minorities fleeing
    religious persecution from certain countries; and, finally,
    Ukrainians fleeing the Russian invasion.
        First let me speak about persons with disabilities. Some of
    you may have seen a few weeks ago, I thought CNN did an
    excellent job. They have a documentary series with Anderson
    Cooper on a Sunday night, and they follow these migrants who
    are crossing through the Darien Gap, and all of their
    incredible hardships.
        And if you watch the struggles of these people, and the
    hardships of these people, nobody would ever call them lazy.
    Nobody would ever say that they are coming here to just sit
    down and do nothing.
        But they followed certain families along the trail, and one
    of the families, a woman and a few of her kids, I think, they
    followed. And one of the children was a girl who looked to be,
    I do not know, maybe 10, between 10 and 12 years old, who was a
    disabled girl that was having a lot of trouble even staying
    conscious. And the mom after a while could no longer carry her.
        And along the route there were other men, migrant men, who
    were helping her carry her daughter across the Darien Gap. And
    so, the bill as it is currently written would force people with
    disabilities who are able to make it to the United States,
    would send them back to places like Mexico or Guatemala where
    there is no infrastructure for actually medically treating them
    and making sure that, at a minimum, they get the medical
    attention that they need. Instead, they would just be dumped in
    Reynosa, and Tijuana, and Juarez, and many of them likely die.
        The second is religious persecution, people fleeing
    religious persecution who are religious minorities in their
    countries. This amendment would protect people like the
    Rohingya in Burma, the Catholics in Nicaragua, the Uyghurs in
    China whom many of us have spoken about concern for on multiple
    committees in this Congress, and other religious minorities.
        It would also include, this bill, my amendment, Ukrainians
    displaced by Russia's unprovoked invasion into Ukraine, making
    sure that they can stay here in the United States as their
    asylum claims are processed.
        So, three exemptions: disability, religious minorities
    fleeing religious persecution, and Ukrainians who are fleeing
    the deadly Russian invasion.
        That is my amendment.
        Sending these individuals that I have laid out to unknown
    situations in Mexico or Central America with no access to
    family support or proper resources is unconscionable. I know
    many of my Republican friends have expressed support for each
    of these groups in different ways who are fleeing persecution.
    And I hope they will continue to publicly support them by
    voting yes on this amendment.
        And I just want to add that I also believe that the
    rhetoric in the United States, the rhetoric in this Congress,
    the rhetoric from people across the aisle, the Republicans, is
    getting dangerous. It is ill-informed and it is oftentimes
    malicious.
        You notice, let me give you a direct example, you notice
    that over the years folks have moved away from calling human
    beings illegal. And now we have multiple who I think have said
    it today.
        I was reading an article in San Antonio from a news
    organization and, probably about a week ago, and it said, you
    know, something, something, illegal aliens, illegal immigrants.
    Part of the reason that we have not been using those terms is
    because at the least we were able to all acknowledge that these
    are human beings. And you are trying not to dehumanize human
    beings.
        But, unfortunately, many people, including many people in
    this Congress--and you can hear it today--start from the
    assumption that everybody that is coming here is out to kill
    Americans, is out to harm Americans. That is the assumption
    that people start with, that people are not gentle people, that
    they are not compassionate people like those people that
    volunteered to help that woman whose daughter was disabled and
    having trouble walking. They start with the idea that these are
    killers, that these are terrorists, and they are here to harm
    you. And then they go sell it to a big, a wide swath of the
    American people.
        People disingenuously say that the border is open when we
    have three or four times the number of Border Patrol agents
    that we did in the year 2000, 23 years ago. We have got drones
    on the border, we have got surveillance, all kinds of
    surveillance mechanisms on the border and, yet, people say that
    it is open for political reasons.
        I urge your support on this amendment.
        And I yield back, Chairman.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
        I oppose this amendment. It is currently law on the books.
        So, any members seek recognition?
        Mr. Mast is recognized.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you. A couple of things to address here.
        I think our colleagues, you honestly have to think the
    American people are stupid. Because there has been nobody on
    this dais that said every person that comes from another
    country is here to commit a crime. Nobody said that.
        But you are putting blinders on, being willfully naive to
    the fact of that matter that the asylum system, people pouring
    through our borders, is bringing in gross levels of crime. You
    used the term ``unconscionable.'' There is nothing
    unconscionable about sending somebody from Guatemala back to
    Guatemala.
        And your own remarks bear out exactly what really is
    unconscionable, the fact that you said, well, if they go back
    to Guatemala they are not going to get the care that they need,
    or this that they need, or this that they need. You are
    literally saying you want the American people to pay for, in
    your example, somebody from Guatemala's health care, or their
    food, or their lodging, or everything else. That is what is
    truly unconscionable about what you want to allow with this
    system of immigration, again just allowing anybody to come.
        And I will say again, there are real Americans. You have
    said there is no, oh, there is no such thing as a real
    American, it is hateful to say real Americans. No, there are
    real Americans. That is a fact.
        And there is nothing wrong with calling somebody illegal if
    they are here illegally. That is a fact. You do not have to be
    so sensitive as to not simply say what is the truth. It is all
    right to say that. You should get comfortable with saying these
    things that are true. We would be in a better place for the
    people of the United States of America. We would be in a better
    place about what goes on with their dollars that we spend.
    Because every dollar is somebody, somebody's dollar that they
    went to work for.
        I know you all are looking to redistribute it in a host of
    different ways, whether it is because of somebody's credit
    score, or whether it is because of all the things that you
    listed off in your bill here you will redistribute. Not because
    somebody is wealthy and they pay taxes. Anybody that pays
    taxes, because that is what pays for every bit of the policy
    that you are talking about whether they are from Guatemala or
    somewhere else, to pay for their health care, their lodging,
    their food, their everything else. It does not have to be a
    wealthy person. It could be somebody that is a thousandaire.
    Right? Not a millionaire, a thousandaire.
        You are asking for them to pay for the health care of
    somebody else instead of having the money to pay for the health
    care of their own family. That is an example of unconscionable,
    to use your language. That is an example of being ill-informed
    and, I would say, not worthy of representing the American
    people because you do not think that there are real Americans
    to go out there and represent.
        But I would again say there are. They are the ones that are
    most deserving of our attention, paying attention to their
    needs, their communities, their tax dollars, their time away
    from their families, the work of their hands, their labor which
    you are very clearly not willing to take a look at in an
    appropriate way.
        And that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
        Any further discussion?
        Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I believe the words Mr. Mast
    just used to describe a colleague on this committee are
    perilously close to words that should be taken down. And I
    would urge the chair to counsel all members to take care in how
    they describe the person and the motivation of any colleague in
    this body.
        Chairman McCaul. Any further discussion?
        Mr. Castro. Sure. Will you yield to me, Gerry?
        Someone has to yield me time.
        Mr. Connolly. Who is asking? I will gladly yield to Mr.
    Castro.
        Mr. Castro. All right, Brian, you can say whatever you want
    about me. That is fine. Will you yield me time to do that?
    Well, you just did, so, just more, if you want to give me more,
    I am happy to keep going.
        Mr. Connolly. Reclaiming my time just a little bit, Mr.
    Castro.
        Mr. Castro. Yes.
        Mr. Connolly. Actually, the rules of the House do not allow
    Mr. Mast to say anything he wants to say about you. And that is
    what I am reminding our colleagues of. There is a decorum that
    must be respected. Sometimes in the heat of the moment we may
    forget that, but I think we have to show fundamental respect
    for each other if we are going to get the people's business
    done in a meaningful way.
        I yield again to you, Mr. Castro.
        Mr. Castro. Yes. Look, well, first of all my amendment is
    on these three exemptions. But I have expressed concern about
    where one particular party is headed in the United States. I
    believe it is getting dangerous. I believe in some instances it
    is getting hysterical. And it is detached from reality.
        And, quite honestly, and I am not speaking about any
    individual person, but I believe that a lot of it is animated
    by racism and bigotry. And somebody may not say something as
    directly, they may say something indirectly, but when you add
    up all of those comments and how they are speaking about
    people, I think it is hard not to reach that conclusion.
        And, by the way, I am not the only one that believes that.
    There are millions and millions of real Americans who believe
    that.
        I represent a hometown in San Antonio, Texas, of real
    Americans who go to work every day, and work hours, and hours,
    and hours. I grew up in an area that was 95 percent Mexican
    American.
        My grandmother came here in 1922 before the major
    immigration laws of the 1920's were really, I mean, if you talk
    about a period in American history where there was an open
    border it was really before about 1924. OK. And my grandmother
    came to the United States because both her parents had died
    around the time of the Mexican Revolution, and the closest
    relatives that could take her in were not in Mexico but were in
    San Antonio, Texas.
        And there was a line in the documents when she arrived at
    Eagle Pass, Texas, that asked why she was coming. And her
    relatives wrote in that line ``to live,'' that she was coming
    to live.
        So, that is how different immigration policy was in 1922
    than it is now. Now you have got drones, and Border Patrol
    agents, and all the surveillance--I am on the Intelligence
    Committee--all of these, all the things that we do to make sure
    that we have as safe a border as possible.
        So, that is why I say it is detached from reality, or it is
    either detached from reality or it is disingenuous. And that is
    the problem with our politics, both of those things.
        You know, a lot of folks take codels over here to El Paso,
    or to McAllen, or wherever it may be. Maybe they go to San
    Diego. And the mayors and the others tell them, hey, this is a
    safe city. But people who live 1,000 miles from the border
    insist that they know better than the elected officials and the
    residents who actually live along the border.
        These are some of the, literally by the numbers, by the
    American numbers, these are some of the safest cities in the
    country. Yet, there is a whole hysteria created around the
    asylum seekers, you know, who want to have their asylum claims
    processed here in the United States.
        I yield back to Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCaul. OK. The gentleman yields back.
        Any further discussion?
        There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
    on the amendment offered by Representative Castro, Number 8.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, signify by saying no.
        In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. And the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Castro. I ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCaul. A roll call vote has been requested.
        Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote
    will be postponed.
        Any further amendments?
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove is recognized.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an
    amendment.
        [The Amendment offered by Ms. Kamlager-Dove follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
        And the clerk shall report.
        The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R.----
        Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
    amendment is dispensed with.
        The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        You know, sometimes it is the what, but oftentimes it is
    the how. And this amendment seeks to reflect the core component
    of our immigration policy that was omitted from the original
    text. The humanitarian and development assistance we provide
    countries in the region is pivotal to addressing the push
    factors of migration that are driving people to leave their
    home countries.
        Any sustainable approach to migration should focus on
    reducing the untenable conditions that are forcing people to
    flee. That is called strategic partnerships, strategic
    alliances. And without this focus we are left with an
    immigration policy that only addresses the symptoms and not the
    root causes.
        And it is so important that if we are going to solve
    problems, we also look at the underlying issues, the root
    causes, and figure out ways that we can address those.
        My amendment recognizes the importance of United States
    humanitarian and development assistance in our immigration
    policy. And I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
        Any further discussion?
        Mr. Self is recognized.
        Mr. Self. I understand the desire is to, and the central
    policy is to spend more money. We have spent billions, billions
    in humanitarian and development assistance in this region. Very
    little evidence that it has affected the factors incentivizing
    people to migrate.
        The border is open. I believe the policy of the Biden
    Administration is an open border. This amendment should be
    focused on the security assistance against the drug cartels,
    the sex trade. The sex trade in Houston is now worth $68
    billion a year. It now more lucrative than the drug trade,
    which is hard to imagine.
        We have to get into a serious conversation about allocating
    money toward the real issues in this, in this region of the
    world. And we need to make sure that it reduces the flow of the
    illegal immigrants to the United States.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
        Any further discussion?
        Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick.
        Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        I wanted to first support my colleague Castro on his
    comment. The rhetoric that is coming from the other side is
    disruptive, and it removes the humanity that we need to look at
    other people's suffering.
        As a first generation Haitian American whose parents came
    here fleeing a dictator, seeing the grotesque actions and
    activities and how people were treated, we have to remember
    that we can live up to our greatness as Americans, but still
    take care of our neighbors and being great neighbors.
        In addition to that, I think you are incorrect when you say
    that the money we spent on humanitarian efforts has not helped
    us in making sure that people stay in their homes. The truth of
    it is, no one wants to come to the United States. No one wants
    to leave their family, their home, and be stripped away from
    their culture. The reason why they are coming here is for
    centuries we have been the beacon of hope. For centuries we
    have been what everyone aspires to be.
        So, if we proceed in these directions, what we are becoming
    is no longer the leader of international policy and
    humanitarian, we have a responsibility to be good neighbors.
    And when we see countries are suffering, step in, and that
    would not deteriorate us as Americans.
        So, the amendment that Ms. Kamlager-Dove has here is
    actually appropriate to what we need to do. Because if we are
    going to stop migration, especially the extreme migration we
    have seen post-COVID, we have to step in and be those kinds of
    neighbors we see Canada engaging in, we see other countries.
    And it is reducing.
        And another thing we have to acknowledge, that our borders
    are not open. They are not open. There are many people who are
    sent back who are still suffering, who are being deported back
    to their country, and they are dying there.
        Americans are being attacked in Latin America right now.
    Americans. When do we actually start to stabilize and be good
    neighbors? When do we stop the rhetoric? When do we actually
    live up to what people voted us to do and to be here, and we
    actually unify instead of perpetrating these lies. We have to
    be honest.
        The humanitarian aid we have given has worked. The borders
    are closed. The rhetoric is detrimental to all of us as
    Americans, and we see hate rising every single day. And so our
    responsibility is to ensure that we have fair policies, fair
    immigration practices. And that can only be done when we are
    honest and we have compassion for all humans.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
        Any further discussion?
        There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
    on the amendment offered by Representative Kamlager-Dove.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, signify by saying no.
        In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Mr. Chair, a recorded vote. Ask for a
    recorded vote.
        Chairman McCaul. A roll call vote has been requested.
        Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote
    will be postponed.
        Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 2789, To direct the
    Secretary of State to develop a strategy on efforts to
    strengthen subnational cooperation between the United States
    and Mexico, and for other purposes.
        [The Bill H.R. 2789 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall designate the bill.
        The clerk shall designate the bill.
        The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to----
        Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading of
    the bill is dispensed with. The bill is considered as read and
    open to amendment at any point.
        Without objection the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute circulated to members in advance shall be considered
    as read and will be treated as original text for purposes of
    amendment.
        Votes have been called, so I am going to recess now until
    after the floor votes, and then recognize members for their
    statements on the bill.
        [Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the committee recessed, to
    reconvene at 2:29 p.m. the same day.]

                               AFTERNOON SESSION

        Mr. Mast [presiding]. Committee will come to order.
        You ready, Mr. Connolly?
        Mr. Connolly. [Inaudible] Mr. Connolly wants Mr. Sherman to
    do it
        [inaudible.]
        Mr. Mast. We are open to Mr. Sherman.
        Does any member seek recognition to speak on the bill?
        Mr. Stanton is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I represent a border State of Arizona and I have heard time
    and time again from frustrated mayors, county executives, heads
    of non-profits, business owners, and especially law enforcement
    about the disastrous effects of the fentanyl trafficking in our
    communities. It is devastating. And not only do these local
    leaders feel they are not getting the support and resources
    they need from the Federal Government to tackle the problem,
    they are shut out of the conversation. These are folks on the
    ground with deep knowledge and expertise and it is a rich
    untapped resource.
        This legislation, the American Cooperation With Our
    Neighbors Act, tasks the Department of State and USAID with
    improving cooperation and collaboration between local leaders
    and agencies on both sides of the border.
        We know fentanyl trafficked into the U.S. largely from a
    single source: Mexican cartels. Seizures along the southern
    border have been rising for many years but it is clear to
    anyone paying attention that the pace is accelerating rapidly.
        This Congress has provided more funding to law enforcement
    and to the Border Patrol and modernized infrastructure at our
    ports of entry where most drugs are trafficked through, but it
    is going to take an all-hands-on-deck approach with every
    stakeholder working together toward a common goal.
        This bill aims to improve coordination between local law
    enforcement agencies, State and Federal security forces, and
    our counterparts in Mexico by sharing data, creating
    professional development exchange programs, and supporting
    technical assistance to crack down on fentanyl traffickers.
        I have seen this sort of interagency collaboration work
    first hand. Before I served in this Congress, before I served
    in local government in Arizona I served as deputy attorney
    general for the State of Arizona. We took notice that cartels
    were quick--were using quick anonymous Western Union wire
    transfers to launder money they made trafficking narcotics.
        So we got to work and that office created the Transaction
    Record Analysis Center, or TRAC, that law enforcement across
    the southwest can use to investigate and interdict the money
    laundering activities of national and international criminals
    and to mitigate the violence associated with smuggling
    activities that fund these organizations. It has been
    incredibly successful and was recently instrumental in a 3-year
    drug bust operation leading to the seizure of over 4.5 million
    fentanyl-laced fake prescription pills, 66 kilograms of
    fentanyl powder, $2 million in cash, and nearly 50 firearms.
        But this bill goes well beyond subnational law enforcement
    cooperation. It will also improve coordination between the
    Federal Government and the local leaders, businesses,
    hospitals, faith-based organizations who are working to combat
    the fallout from the epidemic like organizations treating
    substance abuse or creating alternatives to gang affiliation
    and businesses that make fentanyl testing strips and innovate
    ways to keep our pharmaceutical safe.
        Some of that collaboration is already happening, but it is
    on a very ad hoc basis. This bill creates the space for
    sustained and strategic collaboration to fight the fentanyl
    crisis ensuring that we are using our resources and vast
    knowledge of our local communities wisely.
        Fentanyl has taken a heavy toll in Mexico as well. Overdose
    deaths are steadily rising along with the brutal cartel
    violence and rampant corruption that trafficking has fueled. To
    fight the fentanyl crisis we need to commit to sustained and
    collaborative engagement to end joint law enforcement not just
    at the international Federal level, but between local leaders
    bearing the brunt of this crisis.
        The second section of this bill tasks the State and
    Treasury Departments with expanding access to financial markets
    for certain Caribbean nations. One thing that State and
    Treasury will have to consider is how each country deals with
    reporting narcotics trafficking and the financing of narcotics.
        This study will help us better understand how we can
    cooperate with our third border and how we can incentivize
    collaboration on drug trafficking.
        So I hope I can count on the support of my colleagues on
    both sides of the aisle to advance this important legislation.
    I yield back.
        Mr. Mast. The gentleman yields back.
        Is there any further discussion?
        The chair recognizes Mr. Sherman for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Sherman. Fortunately I will not take 5 minutes. I come
    from a border State as does Mr. Stanton and I think this is an
    important bill. That is why I support H.R. 2789.
        The measure offers a way to ensure that subnational dialogs
    on transnational challenges are not lost in our bilateral
    relationship. The issues which communities near the border
    face, including the impact of fentanyl, humans and arms
    trafficking, and migration flows, and the humanitarian response
    all deserve our attention. These issues are not just criminal
    in nature, but they also involve public health, youth
    development, business, local capacity concerns, and they
    deserve to be considered as part of any high-level dialog.
    Moreover, leaders in these locations have experiences to share
    including best practices and new proposals.
        Local officials, community organizations, and others need
    to build capacity and need access to resources. A strategy
    which contemplates the local reality can enhance diplomatic
    relations with Mexico and build robust responses to
    multifaceted and transnational challenges. The States of Mexico
    dealing with the States of the United States, localities and
    cities dealing with each other will certainly help us move in
    the right direction.
        Another part of this bill is also important. That part of
    the bill would require a review of obstacles and steps needed
    to ensure that CARICOM nations have access to the financial
    services they need. For far too long many of these island
    nations have faced tremendous adversity from devastating
    climate events and models which limit banking options due to
    perceptions of risk. This bill requires the State Department to
    conduct a review of current practices so that we are able to
    propose solutions to challenges that hinder Caribbean nations
    for providing much needed financial protection and services to
    their population.
        That being said, it is important that our friends in the
    Caribbean not become a haven for tax evasion, a haven for those
    evading our anti-money laundering statutes, and our Know Your
    Customer statutes.
        And we particularly have got to be attuned to
    cryptocurrency as a device. We know that FTX was headquartered
    in the Bahamas.
        So I look forward to this review making sure that banking
    for development and for transactions in the CARICOM nations
    goes forward without those nations serving either to promote
    cryptocurrency or for those who want to shield their assets. So
    often the Cayman Islands allows people to shield them from
    legitimate tax laws.
        I support this bill and yield back.
        Mr. Mast. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize myself for 5 minutes, and simply to bring
    up a discussion. Though many members that were in the last
    debate are no longer in the room, it is it say this: We are now
    speaking about a bill, we are speaking about crime, we are
    speaking about human trafficking, we are speaking about drugs,
    and everything that is coming with our problems of immigration,
    but just a few minutes ago as we were talking about the system
    of asylum, if you brought up the fact that there was crime that
    was associated with--it immediately went hyperbolic saying,
    well, if you say there is crime associated with the asylum
    system, then you must be saying that every person seeing asylum
    is a criminal.
        Well, let me just say this: No. 1, if you are coming into
    our country illegally, you are a criminal. But now it is so
    hypocritical to me what I see going on here, the way this is
    discussed in one place and not in another place. Again, there
    is crime, there is human trafficking, there is drugs. This is
    all a part of the same conversation and it all needs to be
    addressed.
        And I will make the same statement that I made in the last
    debate: If your tub is overflowing, the first thing that you do
    is you shut off the water to keep it from continually
    overflowing and then you deal with some of the problems. And we
    are at the point in my opinion that we need to shut off the
    water because of the way Americans are being affected by what
    is going on with our borders.
        In that, not seeing any further--is there any further
    discussion on the bill?
        I believe you were already recognized.
        Mr. Sherman. If the gentleman would lead--would yield 30
    seconds of his time?
        Mr. Mast. I will yield you 30 seconds of my time.
        Mr. Sherman. I will simply say that it is my understanding
    of the law that it does not make you criminal to come to our
    country and request asylum. Obviously every group that involves
    hundreds of thousands of people includes a few people that
    might commit a crime. That is true of my own constituents,
    750,000 of them. Some of them have engaged in criminal
    activity.
        So I look forward to working with you on this bill and want
    to say that asylum is an important part of our law.
        Mr. Mast. And I will regain my time and just respond
    briefly and say again certainly not every person seeking asylum
    is a criminal, but if somebody enters the United States of
    America uninvited--there are ways that you are invited to come
    in and ways that you are not. If you enter the United States of
    America, no matter what situation it is that you come from,
    then you are a criminal. You are breaking America's laws and
    you are a criminal. And that shouldn't be hyperbolic.
        You have to come in by proper invitation just as I cannot
    go into Mexico or Guatemala or Canada or anywhere else by
    proper invitation. I cannot smuggle something in there. I
    cannot seek a job. I cannot do anything but by proper
    invitation without being a criminal in that country and we
    deserve to offer our people the same respect to our laws.
        In that, any further debate? I see Mr. Self raising his
    hand, so the chair recognizes Mr. Self for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Self. We have conflated asylum with being right. Asylum
    means that you get vetted, you get adjudicated. That is what we
    are not doing. I do not think that anyone is arguing with the
    international law about asylum and our own laws about asylum.
    What we are arguing about is how we do asylum in this country.
    And we are not. I yield back.
        Mr. Mast. The gentleman yields back.
        There being no further discussion of the bill, the
    committee will move to consideration of amendments. Does any
    member have an amendment that they wish to offer?
        Mr. Issa. I have amendment at the desk.
        Mr. Mast. I will say this very slowly so you can regain
    your sense of where we are right now.
        The clerk shall now distribute the amendment.
        The clerk shall report the amendment
        The. Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 2789 offered by Mr. Issa of California. Page
    3, after line 3, insert the following----
        Mr. Mast. Without objection, further reading of the
    amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman from California is
    recognized for 5 minutes on the amendment.
        [The amendment of Mr. Issa follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Amendment 33 exists for an important reason, and that is
    that in the underlying bill, whether you agree with it or
    disagree with it, it fails to be specific about the need for
    the committees of jurisdiction to be informed about an
    agreement prior to its implementation. This gives Congress the
    transparency to understand, object if appropriate, rather than
    having a proposed agreement become a fait accompli without it.
        As you can see, we are not--they are not requiring that we
    approve or hold votes, but there is no question at all Congress
    has a role. And I have named at least a sub-list of the
    committees who clearly need to be informed about the impact of
    deals including the Committee of Jurisdiction for Immigration,
    a committee that I might remind you does in fact recognize that
    if someone presents at the border of entry for a claim, that is
    not illegal, but if they come over the border and are found
    north of the border not through a border of--an entry port,
    that is illegal. And hopefully things like that in agreement by
    being reported to the various committees of jurisdiction in the
    House would give us the kind of information so that we can make
    sure these agreements are as complying.
        We think it is simple. Quite frankly, I expect that this is
    the kind of thing we voice vote and move into the underlying
    bill.
        And I thank the chairman for allowing me to briefly explain
    it and I yield back.
        Mr. Mast. The gentleman yields back.
        I support this amendment. Do any other members seek
    recognition?
        The chair now----
        Mr. Sherman. Yes, just to say I support the amendment. It
    is my understanding the ranking member does as well.
        Mr. Mast. That is correct.
        Mr. Sherman. Yield back.
        Mr. Mast. Very good. The gentleman yields back.
        Do any other members seek recognition?
        The chair now recognizes Mr. Stanton for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
        The underlying bill does require, No. 1, a written strategy
    to be presented by USAID and State to Congress. It also has a
    2-year review.
        That being said, I see no issue with the amendment that
    Congressman Issa has presented. It presents additional
    opportunities for congressional review of the subnational
    cooperation. And I do believe that it does add to the value of
    the bill and I support the amendment as well.
        Mr. Mast. The gentleman yields back.
        Do any other members seek recognition?
        No? There being no further discussion, the question now
    occurs on the amendment offered by Rep. Issa, No. 33.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, say no.
        In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
    amendment is agreed to.
        Are there any further amendments?
        There being no further amendments, the question now occurs
    on the Stanton Amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, signify by saying no.
        In the opinion of the chair, the nays have it.
        Mr. Sherman. I would ask for----
        Mr. Mast. All the ayes--yeas and nays?
        Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman, I am ready to ask----
        Mr. Mast. Do we need a recorded vote?
        Mr. Sherman. A recorded vote would require so many of our
    colleagues to come back.
        Mr. Mast. Roll call vote has been requested. Pursuant to
    the chair's previous announcement this vote will be postponed.
        Are there any further amendments?
        The committee will recess subject to the call of the chair
    and we will reconvene to take votes at a later time. the clerk
    will send out a notice. We are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 2:46 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned
    subject to the call of the chair.]

                                    APPENDIX

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                         VOTES SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE PERRY

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE SCHNEIDER

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP OF H.R. 1690 AND H.R. 589
                                     DAY 2

                                  ----------

                             Friday, April 28, 2023

                              House of Representatives,
                                  Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m., in
    room 210, House Visitor Center, Hon. Michael McCaul (chairman
    of the committee) presiding.
        Chairman McCaul. The committee will come to order. The
    committee postponed further proceedings on reporting House
    Resolution 300 favorably to the House in which the ayes
    prevailed by a voice vote. The question now occurs on reporting
    the measure to the House with a favorable recommendation. The
    Clerk will call the roll.

        The Clerk. Representative Smith.
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
        Representative Wilson.
        Wilson?
        [No response.]
        Representative Perry.
        Perry?
        [No response.]
        Representative Issa.
        Issa?
        [No response.]
        Representative Wagner.
        Ms. Wagner. Aye.
        The Clerk. Wagner votes aye.
        Representative Mast.
        Mr. Mast. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mast votes aye.
        Representative Buck.
        Mr. Buck. Aye.
        The Clerk. Buck votes aye.
        Representative Burchett.
        Burchett?
        [No response.]
        Representative Green.
        Mr. Green. Aye.
        The Clerk. Green votes aye.
        Representative Barr.
        Mr. Barr. Aye.
        The Clerk. Barr votes aye.
        Representative Ronny Jackson.
        Mr. Jackson of Texas. Aye.
        The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
        Representative Young Kim.
        Mrs. Kim of California. Aye.
        The Clerk. Kim votes aye.
        Representative Salazar.
        Salazar?
        [No response.]
        Representative Huizenga.
        Mr. Huizenga. Aye.
        The Clerk. Huizenga votes aye.
        Representative Radewagen.
        Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Representative Hill.
        Mr. Hill. Aye.
        The Clerk. Hill votes aye.
        Representative Davidson.
        Davidson?
        [No response.]
        Representative Baird.
        Mr. Baird. Aye.
        The Clerk. Baird votes aye.
        Representative Waltz.
        Waltz?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Representative Kean.
        Mr. Kean. Yes.
        The Clerk. Kean votes aye.
        Representative Lawler.
        Mr. Lawler. Aye.
        The Clerk. Lawler votes aye.
        Representative Mills.
        Mr. Mills. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mills votes aye.
        Representative McCormick.
        Mr. McCormick. Aye.
        The Clerk. McCormick votes aye.
        Representative Moran.
        Mr. Moran. Aye.
        The Clerk. Moran votes aye.
        Representative James.
        Mr. James. Aye.
        The Clerk. James votes aye.
        Representative Self.
        Mr. Self. Aye.
        The Clerk. Self votes aye.
        Ranking Member Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. No.
        The Clerk. Meeks votes no.
        Representative Sherman.
        Mr. Sherman. No.
        The Clerk. Sherman votes no.
        Representative Connolly.
        Connolly?
        [No response.]
        Representative Keating.
        Keating?
        Representative Cicilline.
        Cicilline?
        [No response.]
        Representative Bera.
        Mr. Bera. No.
        The Clerk. Bera votes no.
        Representative Castro.
        Castro?
        [No response.]
        Representative Titus.
        Mr. Titus. No.
        The Clerk. Titus votes no.
        Representative Lieu.
        Lieu?
        [No response.]
        Representative Wild.
        Ms. Wild. No.
        The Clerk. Wild votes no.
        Representative Phillips.
        Mr. Phillips. No.
        The Clerk. Phillips votes no.
        Representative Allred.
        Allred?
        [No response.]
        Representative Andy Kim.
        Kim?
        [No response.]
        Representative Jacobs.
        Ms. Jacobs. No.
        The Clerk. Jacobs votes no.
        Representative Manning.
        Ms. Manning. No.
        The Clerk. Manning votes no.
        Representative Cherfilus-McCormick.
        Cherfilus-McCormick?
        [No response.]
        Representative Stanton.
        Mr. Stanton. No.
        The Clerk. Stanton votes no.
        Representative Dean.
        Ms. Dean. No.
        The Clerk. Dean votes no.
        Representative Moskowitz.
        Mr. Moskowitz. No.
        The Clerk. Moskowitz votes no.
        Representative Jonathan Jackson.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. No.
        The Clerk. Jackson votes no.
        Representative Kamlager-Dove.
        Kamlager-Dove?
        [No response.]
        Representative Costa.
        Mr. Costa. No.
        The Clerk. Costa votes no.
        Representative Crow.
        Mr. Crow. No.
        The Clerk. Crow votes no.
        Representative Schneider.
        Schneider?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCaul. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes aye.
        Chairman McCaul. Have all members voted? Mr. Burchett is
    recognized. How do you vote?
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After deep
    deliberation, I vote yes.
        Chairman McCaul. You were at the Sizzler, I know.
        Mr. Burchett. I was.
        Chairman McCaul. That early bird breakfast thing that you
    like.
        Mr. Burchett. I just closed it out. They missed you at the
    chocolate fountain this morning, Mr. Chairman.
        The Clerk. Representative Burchett votes aye.
        Chairman McCaul. Does any member which to change his or her
    vote?
        The Clerk will report the tally.
        Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
        Chairman McCaul. How is Mr. Issa recorded? You're tardy,
    sir. How do you vote, Mr. Issa?
        Mr. Issa. Yes. Late, yes.
        The Clerk. Representative Issa votes aye.
        Chairman McCaul. Mr. Keating, how is Mr. Keating voting?
        Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    Cherfilus-McCormick votes no.
        Chairman McCaul. Then we have Mr. Davidson?
        Mr. Davidson. Davidson votes aye.
        Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Cherfilus-McCormick votes no.
        Chairman McCaul. I think we know that.
        The Clerk. Representative Cherfilus-McCormick votes no.
    Davidson votes aye.
        Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Andy Kim votes no.
        The Clerk. Representative Andy Kim votes no.
        Mr. Castro. Castro votes no.
        The Clerk. Representative Castro votes no.
        Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman, in this orderly process, am I
    recorded? Did Representative Wagner vote for me?
        The Clerk. Representative Allred votes no. On this vote,
    the ayes are 22, the noes are 20.
        Chairman McCaul. OK. I have to have a chat with my members.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid is on the
    table. Staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming
    changes.
        The committee postponed further proceedings on the roll
    call vote on the amendment No. 1 offered by Representative
    Castro to the McCaul amendment in the nature of a substitute on
    which the noes had prevailed by voice.
        The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment. The
    Clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Representative Smith.
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no.
        Representative Wilson.
        Wilson?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Representative Perry.
        Perry?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Representative Issa.
        Mr. Issa. No.
        The Clerk. Issa votes no.
        Representative Wagner.
        Ms. Wagner. No.
        The Clerk. Wagner votes no.
        Representative Mast.
        Mr. Mast. No.
        The Clerk. Mast votes no.
        Representative Buck.
        Mr. Buck. No.
        The Clerk. Buck votes no.
        Representative Burchett.
        Mr. Burchett. No.
        The Clerk. Burchett votes no.
        Representative Green.
        Mr. Green. No.
        The Clerk. Green votes no.
        Representative Barr.
        Mr. Barr. No.
        The Clerk. Barr votes no.
        Representative Ronny Jackson.
        Mr. Jackson of Texas. No.
        The Clerk. Jackson votes no.
        Representative Young Kim.
        Mrs. Kim of California. No.
        The Clerk. Kim votes aye.
        Representative Salazar.
        Salazar?
        [No response.]
        Representative Huizenga.
        Mr. Huizenga. No.
        The Clerk. Huizenga votes no.
        Representative Radewagen.
        Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Representative Hill.
        Mr. Hill. No.
        The Clerk. Hill votes no.
        Representative Davidson.
        Mr. Davidson. No.
        The Clerk. Davidson votes no.
        Representative Baird.
        Mr. Baird. No.
        The Clerk. Baird votes no.
        Representative Waltz.
        Waltz?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Representative Kean.
        Mr. Kean. No.
        The Clerk. Kean votes no.
        Representative Lawler.
        Mr. Lawler. No.
        The Clerk. Lawler votes no.
        Representative Mills.
        Mr. Mills. No.
        The Clerk. Mills votes no.
        Representative McCormick.
        Mr. McCormick. No.
        The Clerk. McCormick votes no.
        Representative Moran.
        Mr. Moran. No.
        The Clerk. Moran votes no.
        Representative James.
        Mr. James. No.
        The Clerk. James votes no.
        Representative Self.
        Mr. Self. No.
        The Clerk. Self votes no.
        Ranking Member Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. Yes.
        The Clerk. Meeks votes aye.
        Representative Sherman.
        Mr. Sherman. Aye.
        The Clerk. Sherman votes aye.
        Representative Connolly.
        Connolly?
        [No response.]
        Representative Keating.
        Mr. Keating. Aye.
        The Clerk. Keating votes aye.
        Representative Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
        The Clerk. Cicilline votes aye.
        Representative Bera.
        Mr. Bera. Yes.
        The Clerk. Bera votes aye.
        Representative Castro.
        Mr. Castro. Aye.
        The Clerk. Castro votes aye.
        Representative Titus.
        Mr. Titus. Aye.
        The Clerk. Titus votes aye.
        Representative Lieu.
        Lieu?
        [No response.]
        Representative Wild.
        Ms. Wild. Aye.
        The Clerk. Representative Wild votes aye.
        Representative Phillips.
        Mr. Phillips. Aye.
        The Clerk. Phillips votes aye.
        Representative Allred.
        Mr. Allred. Aye.
        The Clerk. Allred votes aye.
        Representative Andy Kim.
        Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Aye.
        The Clerk. Kim votes aye.
        Representative Jacobs.
        Ms. Jacobs. Aye.
        The Clerk. Jacobs votes aye.
        Representative Manning.
        Ms. Manning. Aye.
        The Clerk. Manning votes no.
        Representative Cherfilus-McCormick.
        Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Aye.
        The Clerk. Cherfilus-McCormick votes aye.
        Representative Stanton.
        Mr. Stanton. Aye.
        The Clerk. Stanton votes aye.
        Representative Dean.
        Ms. Dean. Aye.
        The Clerk. Dean votes aye.
        Representative Moskowitz.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
        The Clerk. Moskowitz votes aye.
        Representative Jonathan Jackson.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Aye.
        The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
        Representative Kamlager-Dove.
        Kamlager-Dove?
        [No response.]
        Representative Costa.
        Mr. Costa. Aye.
        The Clerk. Costa votes aye.
        Representative Crow.
        Mr. Crow. Aye.
        The Clerk. Crow votes aye.
        Representative Schneider.
        Schneider?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman McCaul. Chairman votes no.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
        Chairman McCaul. The Clerk will report the tally.
        The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 22 and the noes are--
    the ayes are 20 and the noes are 22.
        Chairman McCaul. The noes have it and the amendment is not
    agreed to.
        The chair postponed a further proceeding in the roll call
    vote on Amendment 8 offered by Representative Castro to the
    McCaul amendment in the nature of a substitute on which the
    noes prevailed by voice vote.
        The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment. The
    Clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Representative Smith.
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no.
        Representative Wilson.
        Wilson?
        [No response.]
        Representative Perry.
        Perry?
        [No response.]
        Representative Issa.
        Mr. Issa. No.
        The Clerk. Issa votes no.
        Representative Wagner.
        Ms. Wagner. No.
        The Clerk. Wagner votes no.
        Representative Mast.
        Mr. Mast. No.
        The Clerk. Mast votes no.
        Representative Buck.
        Mr. Buck. No.
        The Clerk. Buck votes no.
        Representative Burchett.
        Mr. Burchett. No.
        The Clerk. Burchett votes no.
        Representative Green.
        Mr. Green. No.
        The Clerk. Green votes no.
        Representative Barr.
        Mr. Barr. No.
        The Clerk. Barr votes no.
        Representative Ronny Jackson.
        Mr. Jackson of Texas. No.
        The Clerk. Jackson votes no.
        Representative Young Kim.
        Mrs. Kim of California. No.
        The Clerk. Kim votes no.
        Representative Salazar.
        Salazar?
        [No response.]
        Representative Huizenga.
        Mr. Huizenga. No.
        The Clerk. Huizenga votes no.
        Representative Radewagen.
        Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Representative Hill.
        Mr. Hill. No.
        The Clerk. Hill votes no.
        Representative Davidson.
        Mr. Davidson. No.
        The Clerk. Davidson votes no.
        Representative Baird.
        Mr. Baird. No.
        The Clerk. Baird votes no.
        Representative Waltz.
        Waltz?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Representative Kean.
        Mr. Kean. No.
        The Clerk. Kean votes no.
        Representative Lawler.
        Mr. Lawler. No.
        The Clerk. Lawler votes no.
        Representative Mills.
        Mr. Mills. No.
        The Clerk. Mills votes no.
        Representative McCormick.
        Mr. McCormick. No.
        The Clerk. McCormick votes no.
        Representative Moran.
        Mr. Moran. No.
        The Clerk. Moran votes no.
        Representative James.
        Mr. James. No.
        The Clerk. James votes no.
        Representative Self.
        Mr. Self. No.
        The Clerk. Self votes no.
        Ranking Member Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. Yes.
        The Clerk. Ranking Member Meeks votes aye.
        Representative Sherman.
        Mr. Sherman. Aye.
        The Clerk. Sherman votes aye.
        Representative Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Aye.
        The Clerk. Representative Connolly votes aye.
        Representative Keating.
        Mr. Keating. Yes.
        The Clerk. Keating votes aye.
        Representative Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
        The Clerk. Cicilline votes aye.
        Representative Bera.
        Mr. Bera. Yes.
        The Clerk. Bera votes aye.
        Representative Castro.
        Mr. Castro. Aye.
        The Clerk. Castro votes aye.
        Representative Titus.
        Mr. Titus. Aye.
        The Clerk. Titus votes aye.
        Representative Lieu.
        Lieu?
        [No response.]
        Representative Wild.
        Ms. Wild. Aye.
        The Clerk. Wild votes aye.
        Representative Phillips.
        Mr. Phillips. Aye.
        The Clerk. Phillips votes aye.
        Representative Allred.
        Mr. Allred. Aye.
        The Clerk. Allred votes aye.
        Representative Andy Kim.
        Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Aye.
        The Clerk. Kim votes aye.
        Representative Jacobs.
        Ms. Jacobs. Aye.
        The Clerk. Jacobs votes aye.
        Representative Manning.
        Ms. Manning. Aye.
        The Clerk. Manning votes no.
        Representative Cherfilus-McCormick.
        Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Aye.
        The Clerk. Cherfilus-McCormick votes aye.
        Representative Stanton.
        Mr. Stanton. Aye.
        The Clerk. Stanton votes aye.
        Representative Dean.
        Ms. Dean. Aye.
        The Clerk. Dean votes aye.
        Representative Moskowitz.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
        The Clerk. Moskowitz votes aye.
        Representative Jonathan Jackson.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Aye.
        The Clerk. Jonathan Jackson votes aye.
        Representative Kamlager-Dove.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Aye.
        The Clerk. Kamlager-Dove votes aye.
        Representative Costa.
        Mr. Costa. Aye.
        The Clerk. Costa votes aye.
        Representative Crow.
        Mr. Crow. Aye.
        The Clerk. Crow votes aye.
        Representative Schneider.
        Schneider?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman McCaul. Chairman votes no.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
        Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman, didn't Republicans pass an
    amendment prohibiting keeping a vote open for the purpose of
    changing that vote?
        Chairman McCaul. How is Mr. Wilson recorded?
        The Clerk. Representative Wilson votes no.
        Chairman McCaul. OK, perfect.
        Mr. Meeks. How is Mr. Lieu recorded?
        The Clerk. Representative Lieu votes aye.
        Chairman McCaul. Clerk will report the tally.
        The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 23 and the noes are
    23.
        Chairman McCaul. The vote is a tie and the amendment is not
    agreed to. That is the authority of the chair. You may not like
    it, Jerry, but I am going to exercise my authority. I am
    exercising my authority.
        Ms. Jacobs. Madam Clerk, point of order. Per the HPAC
    rules, can the chair hold a markup vote open?
        Chairman McCaul. That is an appropriate question for the
    Clerk. I can hold the vote, waiting for members to appear as we
    just finally have Mr. Waltz appear. Thank you. We need you,
    buddy.
        The committee postponed further proceedings on the roll
    call vote on Amendment 9 offered by Representative Kamlager-
    Dove to the McCaul amendment in the nature of a substitute
    which the noes prevailed by a voice vote. The question now
    occurs on agreeing to the amendment. The Clerk will call the
    roll.
        The Clerk. Representative Smith.
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no.
        Representative Wilson.
        Wilson?
        Mr. Wilson. No.
        The Clerk. Wilson votes no.
        Representative Perry.
        Perry?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Representative Issa.
        Mr. Issa. No.
        The Clerk. Issa votes no.
        Representative Wagner.
        Ms. Wagner. No.
        The Clerk. Wagner votes no.
        Representative Mast.
        Mr. Mast. No.
        The Clerk. Mast votes no.
        Representative Buck.
        Mr. Buck. No.
        The Clerk. Buck votes no.
        Representative Burchett.
        Mr. Burchett. No.
        The Clerk. Burchett votes no.
        Representative Green.
        Mr. Green. No.
        The Clerk. Green votes no.
        Representative Barr.
        Mr. Barr. No.
        The Clerk. Barr votes no.
        Representative Ronny Jackson.
        Mr. Jackson of Texas. No.
        The Clerk. Jackson votes no.
        Representative Young Kim.
        Mrs. Kim of California. No.
        The Clerk. Kim votes no.
        Representative Salazar.
        Salazar?
        [No response.]
        Representative Huizenga.
        Mr. Huizenga. No.
        The Clerk. Huizenga votes no.
        Representative Radewagen.
        Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Representative Hill.
        Mr. Hill. No.
        The Clerk. Hill votes no.
        Representative Davidson.
        Mr. Davidson. No.
        The Clerk. Davidson votes no.
        Representative Baird.
        Mr. Baird. No.
        The Clerk. Baird votes no.
        Representative Waltz.
        Waltz?
        Mr. Waltz. No.
        The Clerk. Waltz votes no.
        Representative Kean.
        Mr. Kean. No.
        The Clerk. Kean votes no.
        Representative Lawler.
        Mr. Lawler. No.
        The Clerk. Lawler votes no.
        Representative Mills.
        Mr. Mills. No.
        The Clerk. Mills votes no.
        Representative McCormick.
        Mr. McCormick. No.
        The Clerk. McCormick votes no.
        Representative Moran.
        Mr. Moran. No.
        The Clerk. Moran votes no.
        Representative James.
        Mr. James. No.
        The Clerk. James votes no.
        Representative Self.
        Mr. Self. No.
        The Clerk. Self votes no.
        Ranking Member Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. Yes.
        The Clerk. Meeks votes aye.
        Representative Sherman.
        Mr. Sherman. Aye.
        The Clerk. Sherman votes aye.
        Representative Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Aye.
        The Clerk. Connolly votes aye.
        Representative Keating.
        Mr. Keating. Yes.
        The Clerk. Keating votes aye.
        Representative Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. Aye.
        The Clerk. Cicilline votes aye.
        Representative Bera.
        Mr. Bera. Yes.
        The Clerk. Bera votes aye.
        Representative Castro.
        Mr. Castro. Aye.
        The Clerk. Castro votes aye.
        Representative Titus.
        Mr. Titus. Aye.
        The Clerk. Titus votes aye.
        Representative Lieu.
        Mr. Lieu. Aye.
        The Clerk. Lieu votes aye.
        Representative Wild.
        Ms. Wild. Aye.
        The Clerk. Wild votes aye.
        Representative Phillips.
        Mr. Phillips. Aye.
        The Clerk. Phillips votes aye.
        Representative Allred.
        Mr. Allred. Aye.
        The Clerk. Allred votes aye.
        Representative Andy Kim.
        Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Aye.
        The Clerk. Kim votes aye.
        Representative Jacobs.
        Ms. Jacobs. Aye.
        The Clerk. Jacobs votes aye.
        Representative Manning.
        Ms. Manning. Aye.
        The Clerk. Manning votes aye.
        Representative Cherfilus-McCormick.
        Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Aye.
        The Clerk. Cherfilus-McCormick votes aye.
        Representative Stanton.
        Mr. Stanton. Aye.
        The Clerk. Stanton votes aye.
        Representative Dean.
        Ms. Dean. Aye.
        The Clerk. Dean votes aye.
        Representative Moskowitz.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
        The Clerk. Moskowitz votes aye.
        Representative Jonathan Jackson.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Aye.
        The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
        Representative Kamlager-Dove.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Aye.
        The Clerk. Kamlager-Dove votes aye.
        Representative Costa.
        Costa?
        Mr. Costa. Aye.
        The Clerk. Costa votes aye.
        Representative Crow.
        Mr. Crow. Aye.
        The Clerk. Crow votes aye.
        Representative Schneider.
        Schneider?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman McCaul. Chairman votes no.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
        Chairman McCaul. The Clerk will report the tally.
        The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 23 and the noes are
    24.
        Chairman McCaul. The noes have it and the amendment is not
    agreed to.
        The question now occurs on the McCaul amendment in the
    nature of a substitute, number 40.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, signify by saying no.
        In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
    amendment----
        Mr. Meeks. I request a roll call vote.
        Chairman McCaul. I cannot believe you just said that. A
    roll call vote has been requested. The Clerk will call the
    roll.
        The Clerk. Representative Smith.
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
        Representative Wilson.
        Wilson?
        Mr. Wilson. Aye.
        The Clerk. Wilson votes aye.
        Representative Perry.
        Perry?
        [No response.]
        Representative Issa.
        Mr. Issa. Aye.
        The Clerk. Issa votes aye.
        Representative Wagner.
        Ms. Wagner. Aye.
        The Clerk. Representative Mast.
        Mr. Mast. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mast votes aye.
        Representative Buck.
        Mr. Buck. Aye.
        The Clerk. Buck votes aye.
        Representative Burchett.
        Mr. Burchett. Aye.
        The Clerk. Burchett votes aye.
        Representative Green.
        Mr. Green. Aye.
        The Clerk. Green votes aye.
        Representative Barr.
        Mr. Barr. Aye.
        The Clerk. Barr votes aye.
        Representative Ronny Jackson.
        Mr. Jackson of Texas. Aye.
        The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
        Representative Young Kim.
        Mrs. Kim of California. Aye.
        The Clerk. Young Kim votes aye.
        Representative Salazar.
        Salazar?
        [No response.]
        Representative Huizenga.
        Mr. Huizenga. Aye.
        The Clerk. Huizenga votes aye.
        Representative Radewagen.
        Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Representative Hill.
        Mr. Hill. Aye.
        The Clerk. Hill votes aye.
        Representative Davidson.
        Mr. Davidson. Aye.
        The Clerk. Davidson votes aye.
        Representative Baird.
        Mr. Baird. Aye.
        The Clerk. Baird votes aye.
        Representative Waltz.
        Mr. Waltz. Aye.
        The Clerk. Waltz votes aye.
        Representative Kean.
        Mr. Kean. Yes.
        The Clerk. Kean votes aye.
        Representative Lawler.
        Mr. Lawler. Aye.
        The Clerk. Lawler votes aye.
        Representative Mills.
        Mr. Mills. Yes.
        The Clerk. Mills votes aye.
        Representative McCormick.
        Mr. McCormick. Aye.
        The Clerk. McCormick votes aye.
        Representative Moran.
        Mr. Moran. Aye.
        The Clerk. Moran votes aye.
        Representative James.
        Mr. James. Aye.
        The Clerk. James votes aye.
        Representative Self.
        Mr. Self. Aye.
        The Clerk. Self votes aye.
        Ranking Member Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. No.
        The Clerk. Meeks votes no.
        Representative Sherman.
        Mr. Sherman. No.
        The Clerk. Sherman votes no.
        Representative Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Nay.
        The Clerk. Connolly votes no.
        Representative Keating.
        Mr. Keating. No.
        The Clerk. Keating votes no.
        Representative Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. No.
        The Clerk. Cicilline votes no.
        Representative Bera.
        Mr. Bera. No.
        The Clerk. Bera votes no.
        Representative Castro.
        Mr. Castro. No.
        The Clerk. Castro votes no.
        Representative Titus.
        Mr. Titus. No.
        The Clerk. Titus votes no.
        Representative Lieu.
        Mr. Lieu. No.
        The Clerk. Lieu votes no.
        Representative Wild.
        Ms. Wild. No.
        The Clerk. Wild votes no.
        Representative Phillips.
        Mr. Phillips. No.
        The Clerk. Phillips votes no.
        Representative Allred.
        Mr. Allred. Yes.
        The Clerk. Allred votes aye.
        Representative Andy Kim.
        Mr. Kim of New Jersey. No.
        The Clerk. Kim votes no.
        Representative Jacobs.
        Ms. Jacobs. No.
        The Clerk. Jacobs votes no.
        Representative Manning.
        Ms. Manning. No.
        The Clerk. Manning votes no.
        Representative Cherfilus-McCormick.
        Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. No.
        The Clerk. Cherfilus-McCormick votes no.
        Representative Stanton.
        Mr. Stanton. No.
        The Clerk. Stanton votes no.
        Representative Dean.
        Ms. Dean. No.
        The Clerk. Dean votes no.
        Representative Moskowitz.
        Mr. Moskowitz. No.
        The Clerk. Moskowitz votes no.
        Representative Jonathan Jackson.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. No.
        The Clerk. Jackson votes no.
        Representative Kamlager-Dove.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. No.
        The Clerk. Kamlager-Dove votes no.
        Representative Costa.
        Mr. Costa. No.
        The Clerk. Costa votes no.
        Representative Crow.
        Mr. Crow. No.
        The Clerk. Crow votes no.
        Representative Schneider.
        Schneider?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman McCaul. Chairman votes aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes aye.
        Chairman McCaul. The Clerk will report the tally.
        The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 25, the noes are 22.
        Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it. The McCaul amendment in
    the nature of a substitute is agreed to. There being no further
    amendments to dispense with, I move that the committee report
    H.R. 1690, as amended, to the House with a favorable
    recommendation.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, signify by saying no.
        In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
    motion is agreed to.
        Mr. Meeks. Mr. Chairman, I request a roll call vote.
        Chairman McCaul. A roll vote has been requested. The Clerk
    shall call the roll.
        The Clerk. Representative Smith?
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
        Representative Wilson.
        Mr. Wilson. Aye.
        The Clerk. Wilson votes aye.
        Representative Perry.
        Perry?
        [No response.]
        Representative Issa.
        Mr. Issa. Aye.
        The Clerk. Issa votes aye.
        Representative Wagner.
        Ms. Wagner. Aye.
        The Clerk. Wagner votes aye.
        Representative Mast.
        Mr. Mast. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mast votes aye.
        Representative Buck.
        Mr. Buck. Aye.
        The Clerk. Buck votes aye.
        Representative Burchett.
        Mr. Burchett. Aye.
        The Clerk. Burchett votes aye.
        Representative Green.
        Mr. Green. Aye.
        The Clerk. Green votes aye.
        Representative Barr.
        Mr. Barr. Aye.
        The Clerk. Barr votes aye.
        Representative Ronny Jackson.
        Mr. Jackson of Texas. Aye.
        The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
        Representative Young Kim.
        Mrs. Kim of California. Aye.
        The Clerk. Kim votes aye.
        Representative Salazar.
        Salazar?
        [No response.]
        Representative Huizenga.
        Mr. Huizenga. Aye.
        The Clerk. Huizenga votes aye.
        Representative Radewagen.
        Radewagen?
        [No response.]
        Representative Hill.
        Mr. Hill. Aye.
        The Clerk. Hill votes aye.
        Representative Davidson.
        Mr. Davidson. Aye.
        The Clerk. Davidson votes aye.
        Representative Baird.
        Mr. Baird. Aye.
        The Clerk. Baird votes aye.
        Representative Waltz.
        Mr. Waltz. Aye.
        The Clerk. Waltz votes aye.
        Representative Kean.
        Mr. Kean. Yes.
        The Clerk. Kean votes aye.
        Representative Lawler.
        Mr. Lawler. Aye.
        The Clerk. Lawler votes aye.
        Representative Mills.
        Mr. Mills. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mills votes aye.
        Representative McCormick.
        Mr. McCormick. Aye.
        The Clerk. McCormick votes aye.
        Representative Moran.
        Mr. Moran. Aye.
        The Clerk. Moran votes aye.
        Representative James.
        Mr. James. Aye.
        The Clerk. James votes aye.
        Representative Self.
        Mr. Self. Aye.
        The Clerk. Self votes aye.
        Ranking Member Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. No.
        The Clerk. Meeks votes no.
        Representative Sherman.
        Mr. Sherman. No.
        The Clerk. Sherman votes no.
        Representative Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Nay.
        The Clerk. Connolly votes no.
        Representative Keating.
        Mr. Keating. No.
        The Clerk. Keating votes no.
        Representative Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. No.
        The Clerk. Cicilline votes no.
        Representative Bera.
        Mr. Bera. No.
        The Clerk. Bera votes no.
        Representative Castro.
        Mr. Castro. No.
        The Clerk. Castro votes no.
        Representative Titus.
        Mr. Titus. No.
        The Clerk. Titus votes no.
        Representative Lieu.
        Mr. Lieu. No.
        The Clerk. Lieu votes no.
        Representative Wild.
        Ms. Wild. No.
        The Clerk. Wild votes no.
        Representative Phillips.
        Mr. Phillips. No.
        The Clerk. Phillips votes no.
        Representative Allred.
        Mr. Allred. Aye.
        The Clerk. Allred votes aye.
        Representative Andy Kim.
        Mr. Kim of New Jersey. No.
        The Clerk. Kim votes no.
        Representative Jacobs.
        Ms. Jacobs. No.
        The Clerk. Jacobs votes no.
        Representative Manning.
        Ms. Manning. No.
        The Clerk. Manning votes no.
        Representative Cherfilus-McCormick.
        Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. No.
        The Clerk. Cherfilus-McCormick votes no.
        Representative Stanton.
        Mr. Stanton. No.
        The Clerk. Stanton votes no.
        Representative Dean.
        Ms. Dean. No.
        The Clerk. Dean votes no.
        Representative Moskowitz.
        Mr. Moskowitz. No.
        The Clerk. Moskowitz votes no.
        Representative Jonathan Jackson.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. No.
        The Clerk. Jackson votes no.
        Representative Kamlager-Dove.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. No.
        The Clerk. Kamlager-Dove votes no.
        Representative Costa.
        Mr. Costa. No.
        The Clerk. Costa votes no.
        Representative Crow.
        Mr. Crow. No.
        The Clerk. Crow votes no.
        Representative Schneider.
        Schneider?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman McCaul. Votes aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes aye. On this vote, the ayes
    are 25, the noes are 22.
        Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it, and the motion is
    received without objection. The motion to reconsider is laid on
    the table. Staff is authorized to make any technical and
    conforming changes.
        I ask unanimous consent to vacate the record vote on the
    Stanton ANS and we will redo the voice vote.
        The question now occurs on the Stanton amendment in the
    nature of a substitute as amended.
        All in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, signify by saying no.
        The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
    amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to.
        There being no further amendments to dispense with, I move
    that the committee report H.R. 2789, as amended, to the House
    with a favorable recommendation.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, signify by saying no.
        The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and motion is
    agreed to.
        Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
    table. Staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming
    changes.
        This concludes, ladies and gentlemen, this very exciting
    markup. Thanks to all of you for showing up timely and we will
    see you next time.
        [Whereupon, at 10:07 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                 MARKUP SUMMARY

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]