[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]