[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]