[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MARKUP OF VARIOUS MEASURES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
July 10, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-125
_________
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
56-597PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
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 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 KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
KEITH SELF, Texas BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam
Brendan Shields, Majority Staff Director
Sajit Gandhi, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
REPRESENTATIVES
Page
Opening Statement of Chairman Michael McCaul..................... 1
Opening Statement of Ranking Member Gregory Meeks................ 20
BILLS AND AMENDMENTS
H.R. 8926........................................................ 3
Amendment offered by Rep. Meeks.................................. 25
Amendment offered by Rep. Stanton................................ 28
Amendment offered by Rep. Stanton................................ 31
Amendment offered by Rep. Stanton................................ 34
Amendment offered by Rep. Davidson............................... 38
Amendment offered by Rep. Castro................................. 42
H.R. 8345........................................................ 53
H.R. 1323........................................................ 60
H.R. 8232........................................................ 67
Amendment offered by Rep. McCormick.............................. 74
H.R. 8924........................................................ 77
Amendment offered by Rep. Kim.................................... 90
H.R.8892......................................................... 103
Amendment offered by Rep. Huizenga............................... 111
H.R.8936......................................................... 118
Amendment offered by Rep. Huizenga............................... 144
H.R. 7151........................................................ 148
H.R. 8566........................................................ 155
Amendment offered by Rep. Wilson................................. 166
H.Res 837....................................................... 202
Amendment offered by Rep. Wild................................... 208
Amendment offered by Rep. Bera................................... 211
Amendment offered by Rep. Davidson............................... 214
H.Res 554........................................................ 217
Amendment offered by Rep. James.................................. 223
H.Res 1328....................................................... 228
H.J. Res 164..................................................... 238
H.R. 1425........................................................ 245
H.R. 7025........................................................ 257
H.R. 7914........................................................ 262
Amendment offered by Rep. Sherman................................ 275
H.R. 8934........................................................ 277
H.R 3042......................................................... 288
Amendment offered by Rep. Castro................................. 294
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 302
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 305
Hearing Attendance............................................... 306
Markup Summary................................................... 307
Votes of Committee............................................... 310
Amendment H.R 7151 ANS offered by Rep. Wagner.................... 320
MARKUP OF VARIOUS MEASURES
----------
Wednesday, July 10, 2024
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:22 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael McCaul
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL McCAUL
Chairman McCaul. A quorum being present the Committee of
Foreign Affairs will come to order.
I believe first acknowledging--first of all, it is Brian
Mast's birthday. Happy birthday. And we could sing the Boehner
song, I don't know, if you want to.
This is your birthday song. it doesn't last too long. Hey.
I also want to extend my condolences--I know that everyone
on this committee--your father's passing recently. And I know
he is very proud and lived to see the day when his son became a
Member of Congress. And also a proud veteran of South Korea
like my father as well. And anyway, we love you, man.
Also I do want to acknowledge that the lead staffer on the
Development Finance Corporation, Jimmy Walsh, is not here today
because his fiance is in the ICU in a coma. And it is
unfortunate that he can't see his bill hopefully pass out of
this committee. And he spent a good 2 years to work on the
reauthorization.
So with that, committee is meeting today for consideration
of H.R. 8926, DFC Modernization and Reauthorization Act of
2024; H.R. 8345, No Official Palestine Entry Act; H.R.--Res.
1323, Rejecting the United Nations Decision to Place the Israel
Defense Force on a List of Child Rights Abusers; H.R. 7914,
Accountability for Terrorist Perpetrators of October 7th Act;
H.R. 8232, To Authorize the Secretary of State to Withdraw from
the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine
Refugees in the Near East Federal Funds Previously Made
Available; H.R. 7151, the Export Control Enforcement and
Enhancement Act; H.R. 8924, Protecting American Innovation and
Development Act; H.R. 8892, the Missile Technology Controls
Revision Act; H.R. 8936, the Rohingya Genocide Accountability
and Protection Act; H.Res. 837, Reaffirming the Ties Between
the United States and the Philippines; H.R. 8566, Mobilizing
and Enhancing Georgia's Options for Building Accountability,
Resilience, and Independence Act; H.Res. 544, Affirming the
Nature and Importance of the Support of the United States for
the Religious and Ethnic Minority Survivors of Genocide in
Iraq; H.R. 1425, the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty
Without Senate Approval Act; H.J.Res. 164, Providing for
congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title 5 United
States Code of the Rule Submitted by the Department of Commerce
Related to ``Revision of Firearms License Requirements;''
H.Res. 1328, Recognizing the Actions of the Rapid Support
Forces and Allied Militias in the Darfur Region of Sudan
Against Non-Arab Ethnic Communities as Acts of Genocide; H.R.
7025, the United States Commission on International Religious
Freedom Reauthorization Act; H.R. 8934, The Sanction Sea
Pirates Act; and H.R. 3042, The Millennium Challenge
Corporation Candidate Country Reform Act.
So 18 bills. Who says this committee doesn't get anything
done? In fact, proud to announce that this committee has been
the most productive committee of this Congress and has passed
more bills out of committee and on the floor and into law than
any other committee in the Congress. And I want to thank Mr.
Meeks for his cooperation and being a good ally working
together on many of these bills.
So pursuant to the House Rules, I request that members have
the opportunity to submit views for any committee report that
may be produced on any of today's measures. Without objection,
so ordered.
The chair announces that any requests for recorded votes
may be rolled and he may recess the committee at any point.
Without objection, so ordered.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 8926, The DFC
Modernization and Reauthorization Act 2024.
[The Bill H.R. 8926 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. Bill was circulated in advance and the
clerk shall designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 8926, to modify and reauthorize the Better
Utilization of Investments Leading to Development Act of 2018.
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, first reading is
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to
amendment at any point. I recognize myself in support of this
bill.
We are in a great power competition. America's soft power
is key to fostering democracy and freedom while also preventing
the spread of authoritarianism around the globe. A key
component of our diplomatic efforts is to establish
partnerships and work with countries around the globe to
support development. That is why the DFC was actually
established.
I am proud to have been a strong supporter of the BUILD
Act. Mr. Yoho was here previously; he was the author of that
act. It established the DFC and it was designed primarily to
counter China.
The Development Finance Corporation is a critical component
in countering the malign intentions of other countries to
exploit developing nations, especially the Chinese Communist
Party. China's Belts and Road Initiative is a tool of economic
coercion employing debt trap diplomacy to ensure nations--place
them under the CCP's influence.
This bill modernizes the DFC and maintains its development
mandate, but most importantly it strengthens the DFC's ability
to further our national security interest by allowing it to
provide a better alternative to Russian project and China's
Belts and Road Initiative.
Legislation also enacts an equity fix that adjusts how the
DFC investments are accounted for. This change will bring
equity in line with Congress' original intent allowing the DFC
to fully unleash its equity investment tool. This will make the
taxpayers' money go further as it allows the DFC to make more
investments with the same amount of appropriated money.
The legislation also expands country eligibility to allow
DFC to invest in an additional 34 countries. It also creates a
waiver for the DFC to work in high-income areas in countries.
It allows the DFC to work in countries where China has already
been active and to establish projects in those countries that
advance our economic and national security interests.
I am pleased that this is a bipartisan bill. I want to
thank Ranking Member Meeks for his efforts to work with me to
modernize the DFC to make it more competitive and effective
around the globe because when I go to Africa primarily or in
Latin America, we say why are you doing business with China?
And the answer is because you are not here. The United States
is not there. This bill will allow the United States to be
there and to compete more effectively.
And with that, I know recognize the ranking member, Mr.
Meeks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER GREGORY MEEKS
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am proud to have
introduced this legislation with you, Mr. Chairman, to
reauthorize the U.S. International Development Finance
Corporation for the next 7 years.
The DFC has been one of our most important development
innovated--innovations of the last decade representing a
concerted effort by Congress and the executive branch to
promote and catalyze inclusive and sustainable economic growth
around the world and in areas where it is most urgently needed.
This is an investment. It is not a handout.
This bill makes important modifications that will maximize
the impact of DFC financing. Chief among those changes is the
inclusion of a fully--of a full equity fix that allows our cost
calculations made on a net present value bases which will allow
the DFC to make more equity investments and projects to help
get them off the ground. This fix will catalyze private sector
investment while also recognizing that equity stakes are
expected to return money to the United States Treasury.
I want to acknowledge the work of Mr. Castro for leading
efforts to address the equity issue across multiple Congresses.
This committee has been strong and consistent in our support
for the expansion of DFC equity investments.
The bill also updates country eligibility definitions to
increase the number of countries that will be able to receive
DFC funding without a waiver. And of critical importance for me
and other members of this committee, the reauthorizations for
the first time allow certain countries with strong development
needs that have been shut out of DFC financing to access it
through a waiver process. And this also will help us be present
and to complete with China.
For example, we know that small Caribbean Island countries
have been among the first to experience acute challenges
associated with climate change. Just look at the rapid
destruction from Hurricane Beryl as one example.
Climate change requires these countries to adapt and build
resilient infrastructure that will keep their citizens safe and
prosperous, but because many of them have small populations and
a few very wealthy residents, their gross national incomes are
distorted making access to DFC financing out of reach.
The adjustments in this bill allow these countries to be
considered for DFC funding as long as projects meet certain
conditions including maintaining a strong focus on development
impact. This will change people's lives for the better and we
have an opportunity today to set that change in motion.
The bill also increases DFC's maximum contingency liability
from 60 billion to 120 billion which would allow DFC to
continue to take on new projects for years to come. This is a
reflection of the importance of DFC's work to catalyze private
sector investment to achieve sustainable development and
economic growth.
I want to thank the stakeholders from the Administration as
well as from the advocacy community and think tanks who have
helped shape this bipartisan reauthorization. Their work to
identify areas for improvement and ways to ensure protection of
DFC's core development mandate have made this a better process.
And finally, again I want to thank Chairman McCaul and his
staff for working with us on this bill and I will of course
urge all of my colleagues to support this measure and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion on the bill?
Ms. Kim is recognized.
Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, chairman.
I am proud to cosponsor H.R. 8926 and support this
legislation.
The message is clear each time I visit the Indo-Pacific
that our allies are waiting for us to show up including through
deeper economic engagements. When we don't show up, our
adversaries do. CCP is funding critical infrastructure projects
and signing security pacts across the region, yet the U.S.
remains the economic and security partner of choice. But
without greater U.S. support the region could be forced to
accept further aid and investment from the CCP.
And it is no secret that the fiscal environment is getting
more difficult for the United States and I am deeply concerned
about our national debt and budget deficit. Given this
environment I believe it is important that we get creative with
how we think about development assistance.
That is why I am a big proponent of public-private
collaboration and I am looking for ways to incorporate more
private sector initiatives into our development policy. We need
to incorporate more private sector initiatives into our
development policy and agencies like the Development Finance
Corporation are key to attracting more private sector
investment into development countries.
This bill reauthorizes the DFC for another 7 years and is
an upgraded version that will provide the DFC the tools to
achieve their development impact and expand to additional
countries.
With that, I strongly support this bill and I urge my
colleagues to do the same, and I yield the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
Any further discussion?
Mr. Castro is recognized.
Mr. Castro. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
speak on H.R. 8926, the bill to reauthorize the U.S.
Development Finance Corporation for a period of 7 years and
institute many much-needed reforms. And thank you and the
ranking member and all others for their work on this.
The DFC became our Nation's newest international
development agency after it was created through the BUILD Act
in 2018. The BUILD Act recognized that many of the development
challenges the world faces require the private sector to play a
decisive role in alignment with the United States'
international development priorities.
In addition to reauthorizing the agency for a period of 7
years, this bill has important provisions that are much needed.
I am particularly supportive of the language in Section 301 of
this bill that requires equity investments by the DFC to be
scored on a net present value basis.
The DFC's equity authority has been hindered for years
because of how it is treated for budgetary purposes. I have
worked for years to fix this issue and I am glad to see this
language in the DFC's reauthorization that we re considering
today.
While this legislation is comprehensive, there are
additional measures that I believe merit inclusion in the
package including provisions to strengthen the DFC's
development impact and its mobilization of private capital that
I will offer today.
I also believe that the Congress must provide the DFC's
Office of the Inspector General with law enforcement
authorities. The BUILD Act created a new Office of the
Inspector General for the DFC, but it did not provide that new
office with law enforcement authorities as most Inspectors
General have. The lack of this law enforcement authority has
seriously and materially hindered the DFC Inspector General's
ability to conduct robust oversight over the agency.
The legislation to provide this authority is unfortunately
not in the jurisdiction of this committee, and so I understand
why it wasn't included in this piece of legislation, but I hope
that as a Congress we can work together to provide the DFC's
Office of the Inspector General with this law enforcement
authority.
With that, I yield back, chairman.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion?
Mr. Barr is recognized.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a proud cosponsor
and strongly support H.R. 8926, DFC Modernization and
Reauthorization Act of 2024.
Since its creation in the BUILD Act of 2018 the Development
Finance Corporation has been a critical tool to advance
American foreign policy while also returning taxpayer funding
to the Treasury. In a time of increased scrutiny of how U.S.
funding is used abroad the DFC is a unique tool that utilizes
the market interests of the private sector to meet development
and strategic needs.
Over the past 6 years we have taken note of ways to make
this tool more competitive and effective. The bill before us
today equips the DFC with critical capabilities to be able to
keep the United States as a partner of choice in international
financing and development.
I am proud that this legislation includes a change to the
way DFC scores investments. Fixing the equity scoring issue
allows the investment structure used in the private sector,
allowing the DFC to make investments go farther and increase
its presence abroad. One of our greatest soft power tools
abroad should not be hampered by an antiquated accounting
system.
Additionally, this bill opens up opportunities for the U.S.
to compete with China's Belt and Road investments in countries
that are technically classified as high-income by the World
Bank. Thanks to changes in the chairman's bill a strategically
important country like Panama is now eligible for the high-
income country waiver.
I traveled to Panama, Mr. Chairman, and I saw that this is
a strategic country where China has major investments on both
sides of the canal, a strategically critical canal for the
United States and the West. And DFC is not allowed to go in and
compete with Belt and Road in a technically high-income
country. But as we all know, Panama has an impoverished
population as well. There is no reason from a development
standpoint, there is no reason from a strategic standpoint that
DFC should be arbitrarily excluded from making investments in
Panama and displacing China Belts and Road.
So this bill fixes that and stipulates that these waivers
are to be focused on projects that directly counter foreign
countries of concern such as China's many investments around
the Panama Canal.
The Development Finance Corporation is unique in the way
that it pulls in the private sector to support commercially
viable projects while also advancing U.S. foreign policy goals.
This is not a blank check from the American people, but a way
that the United States is leveraging our unmatched capital
markets and trusted relationships with allies to offer a real
alternative to China's debt trap diplomacy.
Our ace in the hole in the strategic competition with the
People's Republic of China is that China is a communist
country. They misallocate capital. That is what communists do.
We are capitalists. And with the Development Finance
Corporation harnessing the power of American capital markets we
will win the competition with China.
I am grateful to the chairman and the ranking member for
bringing this important bipartisan measure before the committee
today and I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Great example about the Panama Canal. Thank you for that.
Is there 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. Meeks. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman McCaul. Mr. Meeks is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. I have an amendment at the desk, No. 91.
[The Amendment offered by Mr. Meeks follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
The clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 8926 offered by Mr. Meeks of
New York. In the table of contents strike Section 302----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Chairman McCaul.
As I stated in my comments on the underlying legislation, I
appreciate the thoughtful bipartisan work that has gone into
this bill and believe that we have produced one of the most
important bills of this Congress when it comes to American
leadership around the world.
This amendment is a mix of clarifying and technical fixes
that are nonetheless important. For instance, one of the
clarifying changes makes sure that the DFC will read the
statute such that more countries are eligible for DFC financing
including all the front line Baltic states that are represented
in Washington, DC. this week for NATO's 75th Anniversary
Summit.
This amendment further strengthens an already-strong
product and I look forward to its passage. And with that I
yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
I support this amendment. Is there any further discussion
on the amendment?
There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
on the amendment offered by Representative Meeks, No. 91. 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 is agreed to. Without objection, further reading of
the amendment is dispensed with.
Are there any further amendments?
Mr. Stanton is recognized.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an
amendment at the desk, No. 62.
[The Amendment offered by Mr. Stanton follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
The clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 8926 offered by Mr. Stanton of
Arizona. Page 11, line 3, strike----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, chairman and ranking
member and your great bipartisanship and leading on this very,
very important bill.
I am proud to introduce Amendment 62, which directs the
Vice President for Foreign Affairs at the DFC to identify ways
to advance U.S. foreign policy interests including by
considering ways to buildupon U.S. domestic investments in
critical and emerging technologies.
Last Congress we made historic investments in semiconductor
manufacturing in the United States via the CHIPS and Science
Act in order to protect our national security and grow good
stable jobs in the United States. That is only part of the
puzzle. We need to buildupon this domestic investment through
your foreign policy efforts. We are already doing so.
So we have worked with partners in Netherlands, Japan,
South Korea to implement multilateral export controls on
semiconductor technology going into the PRC and we are working
with Mexico to teach the semiconductor workforce of the future.
But there is need and opportunity to do more.
We need to build out the upstream and downstream parts of
the semiconductor supply chain, namely critical mineral mining,
and processing, and assembly, and testing. There are many
countries hungry to get in the game. Using DFC is a smart way
to help get them in the Western Hemisphere.
Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, and Mexico have large
deposits of critical minerals and could move up the value chain
by not only mining, but processing those materials--those
minerals. And Mexico, Costa Rica, and Dominican Republic are
interested in assembly and testing.
Growth in these countries would fulfill DFC's mission of
advancing our national security by building more secure
emerging technology supply chains. Growth in those countries
would fulfill DFC's mission of promoting development by
delivering jobs that lift up communities, encourage people to
stay in their home countries, jobs that are all the most stable
and financially sound because of how they would contribute to
trade and investment in the United States because of how they
would integrate with our investments here at home.
The DFC reauthorization before us gives DFC more
flexibility to invest. We should make those foreign investments
go that much further by trying to build off our investments we
have already made at home.
But given my understanding of the chairman's position, I am
going to work--I am going to withdraw this amendment at this
time, but look forward to working with the chair and ranking
member moving forward on this policy proposal.
Chairman McCaul. I thank the gentleman for withdrawing the
amendment and pledge to work with him on that policy.
Any further amendments?
Mr. Stanton is recognized.
Mr. Stanton. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk,
No. 63.
[The Amendment offered by Mr. Stanton follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
And the clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 8926 offered by Mr. Stanton of
Arizona. Page 2, line 3, insert an M dash after should----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stanton . Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am proud to introduce Amendment 63, which underscores
that DFC should respond to current topics of national and
economic and foreign policy concern including nearshoring
semiconductor supply chains and critical mineral activity.
DFC was created in part to counter the People's Republic of
China's Belt and Road Initiative. As you know, as we will talk
about during other bills considered in this markup, we are
competing with the PRC on critical emerging technologies
including and especially semiconductors.
Last Congress we did make historic investments in
semiconductor manufacturing here in the United States via the
CHIPS and Science Act. But manufacturing semiconductors is only
one piece of the supply chain puzzle. We also need to think
holistically about both the upstream and downstream parts of
our supply chain, the critical mineral processing on the
upstream and assembling and testing on the downstream.
Using the DFC to invest in such projects is a small part
of--is a smart use of our resources because nearshoring and
building out the semiconductor supply chain helps us to counter
the PRC to shore up our national security by securing supply
chains to further our national economic interests by
complementing the CHIPS Act and to advance our foreign policy
interests and development goals by incentivizing the creation
of stable robust jobs in areas that need it.
The DFC is a powerful tool of American diplomacy. We should
yield that power to respond to the most pressing national
economic and foreign policy issues. So I urge my colleagues to
vote yes on the amendment, and I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any other member seek recognition?
Mr. Meeks is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. I support Mr. Stanton's amendment which
emphasizes the interconnection between development and national
security. DFC can and should take on projects across a number
of key sectors. This amendment highlights the importance of
working with partners in our region to strengthen economic
cooperation and integration especially on critical supply chain
issues that affect us all.
This is important work and I look forward to seeing more of
it as DFC expands its portfolio over time. I support this
amendment, ask others to join, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any other members seek recognition?
Mr. Davidson is recognized.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I applaud the gentleman for this amendment. I think it does
the right thing to get the organization focused. It is
important that DFC accomplishes its actual mission, and this is
really the kind of thing that is core to countering China's
influence with the Belt and Road Initiative.
As we will see in coming amendments that I am offering,
they are focused on all kinds of other things that are
counterproductive and alienating their influence elsewhere, but
this is a great amendment and I support it and hope everyone
else does. I yield.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any other members seek recognition?
Let me say I also support this amendment. As a sense of
Congress on semiconductor supply chains and critical mineral
security, DFC plays a crucial role. And as the author of the
CHIPS Bill, at the urging of Secretary Pompeo, fully support
the intent behind this also because having recently come--
visited Taiwan and TSMC, 90 percent of the advanced
semiconductor manufacturing is on that island. And if China
does invade, it would send the entire world into an economic
shut down. So with that, I support it.
Any further discussion?
There being None, the question now occurs on the amendment
offered by Representative Stanton, No. 63. 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 is agreed to.
Are there any further amendments?
Mr. Davidson is recognized.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you, chairman. This amendment is
simple. It would prohibit the Development Finance Corporation
from conducting DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion
activities. Again, DFC is more focused on----
Chairman McCaul. If the gentleman will pause, the clerk
shall distribute the amendment.
[The Amendment offered by Mr. Stanton follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. And the clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 8926 offered by Mr. Davidson
of Ohio. Page 17, after line 15, insert the following: and
confirm----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you, chairman.
This amendment is very straightforward. It would prohibit
the Development Finance Corporation from conducting DEI
activities. DFC is unfortunately overly focused on pushing a
radical progressive agenda than they are on following the
congressional intent of the BUILD Act, which was clear in its
purpose, which is to advance the foreign policy interests of
the United States.
There is no statutory requirement for DEI, yet on its own
authority DFC created the Division of Diversity, an Inclusion
Officer, required their workforce to take DEI training,
invested in gender equity projects, spent 5 million for small
business lending in Honduras to support gender equity and
inclusion, 15 million for a social development fund whose
programming focuses on equity, $5 million to a company to
provide gender assistance--I don't know how many gender
fluidity issues they have in Africa--5 million for technical
assistance to increase the number of DFC's gender investments,
and enable existing DFC clients to improve gender equity, 150
million for loans in India to address the economic gender gap,
15.5 million for the expansion of lending programs in El
Salvador to support DEI at small businesses.
Look, less development countries are typically more
conservative and traditional in their values, so the DEI
activities this Administration is forcing on these allies are
ruining our relationships with them. And this is compatible
what the Administration to do when they appointed Ambassadors
who are purposely focused on very hostile confrontations with
the cultural values.
Maybe no place more emblematic of that than in Guatemala
where the Secretary of State is literally trying to remove the
party in power any remnant of that with the current Attorney
General. They are actually coercing members of the Guatemalan
legislature by limiting their visas, the visas of their family
members, and threatening to revoke the student visas of
Americans in the United States to study here.
So obviously that alienates allies, people that we want to
have good relationships with and need to, particularly here in
our own hemisphere. And when you look at the purpose of DFC and
the urgency of countering the China Belt and Road Initiative,
why would we continue to allow this Administration to go
unchecked with a very abusive approach?
So I think this amendment makes the bill a better bill and
I would encourage everyone to support it, and I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Meeks is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. I strongly oppose this amendment because it is
not only 100 percent wrong on policy, it is also a poison pill
that would jeopardize the entire DFC reauthorization.
Programs that provide diversity equity are central to our
foreign assistance and provide tremendous benefits to the
workplace and our foreign policy outcomes. An essential part of
advancing our development goals is working with other
governments to harness the diversity in their societies and use
that to create more inclusive and equitable governance. This
builds stability in other countries in the long run, which is
ultimately key to our own national security. The connection is
clear as day.
Congress has worked with DFC in a bipartisan fashion since
it was created and we should not jeopardize that strong
partnership now with a partisan battle. The DFC's work is far
too important and this amendment is wrong-headed. It is not
right. It amounts to nothing more than an attempt to block
reauthorization of the DFC, and thereby I urge my colleagues to
reject it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion?
Let me say first of all I really sympathize with the intent
behind this amendment. I have been very critical of the DFC
prioritizing DEI and green energy, putting our--the
Administration's social values over what may be the values of
say Africans. And also green energy. And I know that will be
the gentleman's next amendment.
The issue is that it is not defined--it is not--it doesn't
exist in the statute, DEI, and it is not defined in this
amendment.
But let me--I pledge to you, sir, that I have held these
projects in the past. We have our oversight capabilities and I
have held these projects, and will continue to do so. The only
one that has gone forward was one related to women's initiative
that was championed by Ivanka Trump and supported by her
father. And that helps women take on leadership roles in
financial services around the world.
But with respect to this amendment and your next amendment,
I pledge to work with you to make sure that we hold that. And I
know with respect to the green energy my argument on that is
the same. I believe in the all-of-the-above energy approach.
And I will just in advance give you my counter to your second
amendment.
To completely take out all green energy projects would go
against our all-of-the-above energy policies. In addition,
China has made great strides in green energy technology and we
would fail to be competitive in that arena as well. So I with
some reluctance oppose the well-intentioned--your--this
amendment and your next one.
Do any other members seek recognition?
There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
on the amendment offered by Representative Davidson, No. 159.
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
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Davidson. Mr. Chair, could I ask for a recorded vote on
this amendment?
Chairman McCaul. Roll call vote has been requested and
pursuant to the chair's previous announcement this vote will be
postponed.
Are there any further amendments?
Mr. Davidson is recognized.
Mr. Davidson. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk, No. 161, climate.
[The Amendment offered by Mr. Davidson follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 8926 offered by Mr. Davidson
of Ohio. Add at the end the following new section:
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you, chairman. I appreciate your
comments on the previous amendment and on this one.
Frankly, it is the same kind of thing. The Republicans are
offering kind of scalpel approaches and the Democrats'
response, as Mr. Meeks responded, is well, it is all or
nothing. I mean, if we put this in here, well, then we clearly
don't want the Development Finance Corporation to exist. No, I
am fine with the thing existing. I supported an amendment to
make it more focused.
But when you have got Ambassadors and tools like the DFC
more focused on Pride Month than on conflict minerals and--
critical minerals and how many solar panels or electric
vehicles a country has, how many charging stations they have in
a foreign country, when with $7+ billion they have built what,
two or three in America with these green energy funds here? It
is turning into a slush fund to advance policy.
We all know it. And when Republicans have a chance to
advance Republican legislation with a Republican majority with
a scalpel--not taking out the whole thing, but just making it
more focused and effective. Things that we should all agree on.
We don't want to fund the things we don't agree on. Let's
fund the things we do agree on because we agree on a lot here,
but it is like, no, no, we can't have that. We can't change it,
we can't make it more focused, the four corners don't agree.
That is why nothing ever changes. It is always the same play
over and over again. Surrender now with a hollow promise to
fight later. It is really disappointing. So that is why the
place never changes.
Under the Biden Administration tax dollars have been used
to push a radical left climate agenda, Green New Deal
programming in America and abroad. And when you look at these
projects: 10 million for a company in Kenya to develop electric
motorcycles and buses, 10 million for a company in India to
manage batteries for their electric vehicles, 300 million for
an expansion of a lending program in Vietnam for climate-linked
small business loans, 5 million for an America--electric
vehicles in Nepal, 60 million in El Salvador for their climate
finance portfolio, another 10 million in India, which is
turning into a fairly wealthy country, for climate adaptation
things. The list goes on.
And we have a $1.9 trillion budget. I mean, how is this
countering the Belt and Road Initiative? It is squandering the
wealth of our country. It is bankrupting our country, not just
financially, but morally.
The BUILD Act which authorized DFC is extremely clear in
its purpose. And if the DFC is not going to follow
congressional intent and advance foreign policy interests of
our country, then it shouldn't receive a single cent of Federal
funding to do the things that are against that program. The
climate agenda applied by the Biden Administration is radically
different than the consensus on climate.
It is not like Republicans don't push anything that is
conservation-oriented, that we don't care about the climate or
environment anywhere else in the world, but we don't push the
Green New Deal radical agenda, that frankly builds China's
green energy sector, builds China's monopoly on rare earth
minerals, and harms America's energy sector. It is at odds with
our interest and we shouldn't be funding things with a program
that is supposed to advance our interests that are working
against ours.
I urge all of our colleagues to support this amendment and
I plead with the chairman to reconsider. I yield.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion?
Mr. Keating. Mr. Chair?
Chairman McCaul. Yes, recognized.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak in opposition
to this amendment. Part of the goals of the DFC is to try and
make us competitive with other competitive nations in the world
like China, like Russia, make sure we are stopping any
independence and exploration of energy needs from countries
like Iran. And this amendment would take away that advantage.
If we want countries to move away from dependence on fossil
fuels: oil and gas from countries like Russia or Iran, if we
want to complete with new technologies with countries like
China, we had better put ourselves in this field. To take
ourselves away from this field and exclude it is to defeat the
very purpose of what the DFC is trying to do, bring countries
forward, raise their economies, move them away from dependence
on Russian fuel or dependence on Iranian fuel.
So this is counterproductive to not only the intent of the
DFC, but it is--also contradicts the U.S. policy as a whole, a
policy we should all agree with. So I am very strong in my
opposition to this and I hope it does not pass.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion?
Mr. Meeks is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. I also oppose this amendment. Prohibiting funds
for solar and wind energy projects, for example makes little
sense to me especially when we are talking about mobilizing
private capital to build sustainable development and economic
growth in countries that already rely on these technologies.
DFC works closely with the private sector and they develop
projects based in large part on where the private sector wants
to go. And guess what? The private sector is incredibly
interested in building out renewable energy projects because
this sector has tremendous growth and profit potential. The
authorization legislation for DFC does not specify the type of
energy projects the DFC should or shouldn't do. And we should
remain consistent in that approach here.
Further, I would like to point out that a significant part
of the DFC's existing portfolio is in renewable energy, and
these are exactly the types of projects where the United States
should be involved so we can provide a viable alternative to
financing from who? The PRC. In reality, cutting off all
funding for renewables would compromise the national security
efforts I know our friends on the other side of the aisle also
care so deeply about.
So I believe this is a harmful amendment and therefore I
oppose it and yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion?
Let me say I again sympathize with the intent behind this
amendment, and in many respects I agree with the gentleman from
Ohio, but to zero out all green energy again would go against
the policy of all-of-the-above, which we often talk about.
Second, it would--gravely concerned, it would jeopardize
the reauthorization that we are trying to achieve here today. I
would emphasize again our oversight ability and ability to hold
these programs and projects. And that has been my practice
since I have become the chairman of this committee.
Now green energy is not found anywhere in the statute
itself. It is just a matter of practice that this
Administration engages in that we can prevent through our
process of holding things. And I would say to the gentleman
again I agree with the spirit of this. The best way to change
this would be have a new administration. The best way to change
this practice would be to have a new administration in power.
So with that, I do oppose this.
And there being no further discussion, the question now
occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Davidson, No.
162. All those in favor, signify by saying aye?
All those oppose, signify by saying no?
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Davidson. Chairman, I ask for a roll vote.
Chairman McCaul. Roll call vote has been requested.
Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement this vote will be
postponed.
Are there any further amendments?
Mr. Castro is recognized.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, chairman. The DFC is first--or I am
sorry. I have an amendment at the desk. It is No. 134.
[The Amendment offered by Mr. Castro follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
The clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 8926 offered by Mr. Castro of
Texas. Strike Section 2 and insert the following: It is in the
sense of Congress that the United States International
Development Finance Corporation should seek to responsibly
increase its risk tolerance----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Castro. Thank you.
The DFC is tasked with international development and I have
continually raised the need to defend that development mandate.
My amendment reinforces the DFC's development mandate and also
includes provisions to highlight the DFC's need to mobilize
private capital.
Specifically, this amendment would reinforce the need for
the DFC to responsibly increase its risk tolerance and mobilize
private capital, require the DFC to structure its projects in
upper-middle income and high-income countries in such a way to
maximize private capital mobilization, strengthen the standards
that need to be met for the DFC to work in high-income
countries, establish a new Vice President for Development
Policy within the regular reporting structure of the DFC to
complement the Vice President for Foreign Policy established by
the underlying legislation, and significantly increase the
DFC's transparency when it comes to private capital
mobilization and development impact.
I have raised concerns in the past that efforts to allow
the DFC to work in high-income countries and to more directly
prioritize foreign policy priorities could be detrimental to
its international development priorities.
H.R. 8926 does include language allowing the DFC to work in
high-income countries and establishes a Vice President for
Foreign Policy, which is why I believe this amendment which
would strengthen the DFC's development mandate and its need to
prioritize private capital mobilization is necessary. And I
urge my colleagues to support the measure and yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion on the amendment?
The ranking member, Mr. Meeks, is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to support this amendment and I want to thank
Ranking Member Castro for offering it.
The amendment will strengthen DFC's development focus and
ability to mobilize private capital, both of which are
essential for DFC's operations. It will also ensure greater
transparency.
This amendment makes clear that the DFC should use all the
tools at the corporation's disposal to responsibly increase
risk appetite including partial guarantees, first loss
coverage, and blending finance. Increasing use of these
authorities will help to expand the number of DFC projects and
amplify the agency's impact.
The amendment also includes language that will strengthen
the certification process for funding to high-income countries
and will further emphasize the importance of maximizing
investments from the private sector.
The amendment makes a key structural improvement also by
codifying the position of Vice President for Development
Policy. This will elevate the chief development officer within
DFC's structure and better integrate development policies
throughout the agency's work.
Finally, this amendment adds reporting requirements that
will make more information available on DFC's investments. With
the modifications we are making to country eligibility to
improve access to DFC financing it will be essential that we
understand how much DFC support is going to countries in each
eligibility category. That information will help both the DFC
and us in the U.S. Congress boost investment impact in the long
term.
And I thank again Chairman McCaul and the majority for
working with us on these improvements and I urge colleagues to
support this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion on the amendment?
Let me say I support this amendment. It ensures that the
DFC is properly mobilizing private capital. It is especially
important in the upper-middle and high-income countries that
the DFC invests to ensure that private capital mobilization is
maximized. It also simplifies the operational structure of the
DFC by renaming the Chief Development Officer as the Vice
President for Development Policy. And overall it advances
development in our high school goals. So with that I support
it.
There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
on the amendment offered by Representative Castro, No. 134. All
those is 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 is agreed to.
Are there any further amendments?
Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk,
No. 100.
[The Amendment offered by Mr. Keating was not submitted]
Chairman McCaul. Mr. Keating is recognized.
The clerk shall report--distribute the amendment.
The clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 8926 offered by Mr. Keating of
Massachusetts.
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Meeks
for holding this markup today and for your work on H.R. 8926 to
authorize the Development Finance Corporation for 7 years. This
is a timely and important bill, and I strongly support it.
As we face many challenges in the world today, the
Development Finance Corporation is a vital tool to the United
States to provide effective financing to nations across the
energy, health, critical infrastructure, telecommunication
sectors, among many more.
Since Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, DFC has worked
diligently in Ukraine, providing financing to more than 12,000
microenterprises as well as loans to major banks and
businesses. Having met with DFC CEO Scott Nathan earlier this
year, I have no doubt the DFC's work is critical to Ukraine's
war effort and to the European continent's security and
stability.
Further efforts to support DFC's work in Europe--in 2019, I
co-led the European Energy Security and Diversification Act,
which enabled DFC to work on energy projects in Europe. I am
grateful this reauthorization provides for greater authorities
for many European countries across all sectors, not just
energy.
However, it is important that we continue to State
resolutely that DFC's work must counter the political influence
of Russia and China, as well as promote the energy, security,
and national security of European countries through energy,
telecommunications, and other infrastructure projects.
As the U.S. hosts the NATO Summit this week, we must be
clear-eyed that we are here stronger together as partners
against the malign actors who seek to divide us wherever
weaknesses presents itself. As Ben Franklin said, we must all
hang together, or most assuredly, we will all hang separately.
Therefore, this amendment reassures European partners and
clarifies the DFC's work across all sectors in Europe will
further U.S. national security and further the Transatlantic
Partnership.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take a moment and speak
briefly in strong support of the MEGOBARI Act introduced by my
friend Joe Wilson, which incorporates aspects of my bill H.R.
8845, which was also introduced by Senator Shaheen in the
Senate.
The bipartisan MEGOBARI Act, which I cosponsored, makes
clear that the Georgian Dream leadership and their team makes
clear to them that the actions they have taken recently will
not go without response. At the same time, the Georgian people
have been resolute in their support for Georgia's Euro-Atlantic
integration for almost 30 years. The U.S. has been supportive
in these efforts.
I strongly support this measure and appreciate the
committee considering it for markup today. I want to thank you
all, and I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further
discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Meeks is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I strongly support this amendment. As many of our allies
gather in our Nation's capital to celebrate the 75th
anniversary of NATO and plan for its future in the years ahead,
it is crucial that we promote economic growth in strategic
sectors for our NATO allies that may not have the financing
capabilities of some of the wealthier NATO countries.
We want our NATO allies not only to spend on defense--and I
note that under the Biden administration's leadership, we have
gone from nine countries contributing 2 percent to 23. We also
want to use safe telecommunication systems. We have energy
resources from reliable partners and cyber capabilities from
trusted companies.
This statement of policy emphasizes such important goals,
and I formally support the amendment of Mr. Keating. And I
yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further
discussion?
There being no--let me say first I support this amendment.
Just as the DFC is labeled as a counter-China initiative, it is
also a counter-Russia initiative. So I appreciate the gentleman
bringing this forward.
There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
on the amendment offered by Representative Keating. 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 is agreed to.
Are there any further amendments?
There being no further amendments, further proceedings on
this bill are postponed.
Pursuant to notice, I call up H.R. 8345, the No Official
Palestine Entry Act.
[The Bill H.R. 8345 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The bill was circulated in advance, and
the clerk shall designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 8345, to limit funds to the United Nations
and other organizations that provide any status, rights, or
privileges beyond observer status to the Palestine Liberation
Organization and for other purposes----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to
amendment at any point.
Is there any discussion on the bill?
Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman McCaul. Mr. Baird is recognized.
Mr. Baird. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and the
ranking member, for today's consideration of H.R. 8345 and for
also serving as a co-lead on this important piece of
legislation.
I also want to thank my other members who have joined as
cosponsors. This bipartisan bill, H.R. 8345, the No Official
Palestinian Entry Act, updates existing U.S. funding
prohibitions to include any U.N. organization that gives any
status, right, or privilege beyond observer status to the
Palestinian Authority or the Palestinian Liberation
Organization.
These entities have continued to commit egregious acts of
terrorism and human rights atrocities. Current U.S. law
prohibits U.S. funding to any U.N. organizations that give the
PLO full membership or standing as a member State. As the
conflict in the Middle East continues, the United States must
stand with our ally Israel against the PA's attempts to
weaponize international organizations.
However, on May the 10 of 1924, the United Nations General
Assembly intentionally voted to bypass United States law and
give the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian Liberation
Organization enhanced status. Although the term ``enhanced
status'' does not guarantee full membership status, it will
still give the PLO numerous rights and privileges that have
previously been given to full-status members.
Unfortunately, this vote passed even with the United States
voting against it. It is deeply shameful that the United
Nations continues to enable the PA's attempts to manipulate the
system for its own gain. The recent action at the U.N. General
Assembly is just the latest example of how the U.N. has chosen
to turn its back on human rights and our domestic allies in
favor of terrorism.
This necessary bill would close loopholes and ensure that
the American taxpayer dollars are not funneled through U.N.
entities that are enabling abuses by the PA. I urge all of my
colleagues on the committee to support this bill, and I yield
back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further
discussion on the bill?
Mr. Meeks is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. Mr. Chairman, over the nearly three decades that
I have been in the U.S. Congress, I have traveled throughout
Israel and Palestinian territories in addition to the Levant
region at-large. I have met with thousands of constituents,
activists, clergy, Israelis, and Palestinians who are all
impacted by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in different ways
and invested in solving it.
And I am convinced by these many experiences that the only
way to achieve a lasting peace between Israelis and
Palestinians is to secure a negotiated two-State solution in
which a Jewish State of Israel lives side by side with an
independent and viable Palestinian State.
I don't believe such peace can be lasting unless security
for both parties is assured. And there are leaders and
populations on both sides ready to compromise and put the
conflict behind them. And I don't think real and lasting peace
can be forced on either side. Only face-to-face negotiations
which cover final status issues, such as Jerusalem, water,
orders, settlements, and security, can assure a sustainable
peace.
This is why, for years, Congress on a bipartisan basis has
worked to convince the U.N. not to recognize Palestine as an
independent State outside of direct peace negotiations. The
bill before us seeks to clarify current foreign assistance laws
to make it clear that any attempt by the PLO to move beyond
observer status within the U.N. system will put U.S. support
for that agency in jeopardy.
However, the bill as currently drafted could have
extraordinarily negative consequences for the United States
beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The State Department
has indicated that if this bill were to become law, it could
immediately trigger a potential cutoff of funding to the United
Nations based not only on the U.N. General Assembly resolution
on Palestinian status adopted in May, but possibly even the
observer State resolution from 2012.
The current draft of this bill could gut U.S. leadership at
the U.N. following a U.S. defunding, including possibly even
causing the United States to lose our ability to vote in the
General Assembly within a year. The United States stepping back
from its U.N. obligations could threaten the institution's
ability to function writ large, impacting a host of issues that
are critical to the United States' interests and ceding even
more ground to our adversaries.
There is also concern that were this language to become
law, it would make it significantly more difficult for U.N.
agencies to provide some lesser status to the Palestinians
short of membership as a State, which various agencies have
done since long before the May 2024 U.N. UNGA resolution, and
which has been considered useful and acceptable by the Oslo
Accords as a means to avoid the PLO obtaining the status of a
member State within these organizations.
So I want to see Israelis and Palestinians living side by
side in peace. I do not want to see our committee's actions
result in a defunding of the United Nations simply because the
Palestinians have been afforded some violent privileges shy of
statehood at the U.N.
And I want to send a strong message that unilateral action
by any party--Israel, the PLO, or the United Nations--that do
not bring the parties together and closer to the vision of the
Oslo Accords are not going to secure a viable peace. But this
bill is not the way to do that in a responsible manner, in my
humble opinion.
Unilateral declaration of Palestinian states outside of
negotiations just won't work, and I don't believe this bill
will either. And therefore, I oppose its passage. And I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Is there any further
discussion?
Mr. Mast is recognized.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman.
I want to thank Mr. Baird for his work on this legislation,
and I would like to yield him the remainder of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Baird. I would like to take issue with the comments
that were just made by the ranking member. You know, Congress
passed multiple laws over 30 years ago to use the power of the
purse to prevent the Palestinians from circumventing a real
peace process with Israel.
In that same vein, the rights and privileges of the UNGA,
General Assembly, has extended the PA excessive amounts of
privileges. And that example would be the right to be seated
among member states in alphabetical order. And seating for the
Holy See should be arranged immediately after member states and
before the other observers when it participates as a nonmember
State observer, the allocation of six seats in the General
Assembly Hall.
So I don't feel that we are setting a precedent or that we
are preventing the U.S. from having leadership in the United
Nations with this bill. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further
discussion?
Mr. Phillips is recognized.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I admire my friend and colleague Mr. Baird, but I also
oppose this measure. I, too, believe that existing U.S. law is
quite clear and that the Palestinian Liberation Organization
should not gain standing as a member State right now.
And while the bill initially looks like a mere
clarification of language, in reality, I believe it would have
far-reaching impacts and not only damage U.S. leadership in the
United Nations but also extends beyond the PLO to possibly
include the Holy See and even perhaps the European Union.
I also believe in a two-State solution that would see a
Palestinian State living side by side in mutual peace and
security with the State of Israel. However, this will only come
through a negotiated peace process between Israelis and
Palestinians, not unilateral action at the United Nations.
Until new leadership emerges--and I'll say it again: until
new leadership emerges to take on the mantle of peace and
coexistence, I will stand by United States existing law. Moving
forward with this legislation, in my estimation, will further
restrict current law and undoubtedly hurt U.S. leadership, also
have wide-ranging consequences, and in my estimation is
unnecessary.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Is there any further
discussion?
Ms. Manning is recognized.
Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
While I have concerns about the impact of H.R. 8345, I
welcome the discussion and debate on the bill, the No Official
Palestine Entry Act, introduced by our colleague Representative
Jim Baird, because of the importance of the underlying issue.
I want to be very clear I am a proud lifelong supporter of
a negotiated two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. That is the only solution that protects Israel's
long-term future as both a Jewish and a Democratic State while
also meeting the aspirations of the Palestinian people.
However, that outcome can only come as a result of direct
negotiations between the two parties and can never be imposed
by an international organization such as the United Nations.
Time and again, we have seen the Palestinians attempt to
make an end run around the peace process by seeking unilateral
recognition by the international community. Unfortunately,
these efforts have been encouraged or supported by certain U.N.
member states, bodies, and the General Assembly, which in May
voted to upgrade the Palestinians status at the U.N.
One-sided U.N. resolutions do not advance peace. They
single out one side of a conflict for blame while encouraging
the other side to reject direct negotiations in favor of a
unilateral strategy. It also removes any sense of agency or
responsibility from one side. It removes the incentive to work
assiduously toward peace, and it rewards one side for its
refusal to make tough compromises and acknowledge that the
Jewish people have a right to live in peace in their ancestral
homeland.
We must oppose unilateral efforts from either side that
attempt to determine the status outside of the context of
direct negotiations. That is the only way to achieve a lasting
agreement with two states for two people living side by side in
peace and security.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields. Is there any
further discussion?
Mr. Castro is recognized.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman.
I have to rise in opposition to this bill, which would
seriously undermine the United States' leadership on the world
stage, cutoff U.S. assistance to the United Nations, and
seriously target U.S. allies and partners, including, as
Congressman Phillips mentioned, the European Union and the
Catholic Church's mission to the United Nations, the Holy See.
Under existing law, the United States cannot fund a U.N.
agency that admits the State of Palestine or other entities
that are not commonly regarded as a State as a full-member
State of that body. The bill was drafted in part in response to
the May 10 resolution adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly that granted the State of Palestine certain rights and
privileges that go beyond that of an ordinary observer State at
the United Nations.
This includes, among others, the right to speak on issues
not directly related to Palestine, the right to make statements
on behalf of a group, the right to submit proposals and
amendments, the right to cosponsor proposals and amendments,
and the right to participate in U.N. conferences.
And this resolution was adopted by a vote at the U.N. of
145 to 9. Close United States allies, including France,
Portugal, Spain, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Japan, South Korea,
Australia, and New Zealand, voted for the resolution. These
enhanced rights and privileges will go into effect in
September.
So, if H.R. 8345 is enacted, the conditions in the bill
would be immediately triggered, requiring the United States to
end all assistance to the United Nations, including its life-
saving work. A vote for this bill is a vote to defund the
United Nations.
There are other entities that enjoy such enhanced rights
and privileges at the United Nations, either at the General
Assembly or in one of the many U.N. agencies. That includes,
for example, the European Union and the representatives of the
Catholic Church at the United Nations, the Holy See.
So I have serious concerns that this legislation, if
enacted, would result in the end to all U.S. support to U.N.
entities that provide enhanced rights and privileges to the EU
and the Holy See and may also result in the U.N. revoking those
rights and privileges to the EU and the Holy See.
So I am a strong supporter of ties between our country and
both the European Union and the Holy See, and I oppose this
legislation that would undermine those ties. And I urge my
colleagues to support the United Nations and a vote against
defunding it by voting for this legislation. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further
discussion?
There being no further discussion of the bill, the
committee will move to consideration of amendments. Does any
member wish to offer an amendment?
There being no amendments, I move that the committee report
H.R. 8345 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. Self. Ask for a roll call 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.Res 1323, rejecting the
United Nations' decision to place the Israel Defense Force on a
list of child rights abusers.
[The Bill H.Res. 1323 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The resolution was circulated in advance.
The clerk shall designate the resolution.
The. Clerk. H.Res. 1323, rejecting the United Nations'
decision to place the Israel Defense Force on a list of child's
rights abusers. Whereas over 1,200 innocent people in Israel
were murdered by Hamas and other terrorists on----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is
dispensed with, and the resolution is considered read and open
to amendment at any point. Is there any discussion on the
resolution?
Mr. Burchett. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman McCaul. Mr. Burchett is recognized.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate you all including this resolution in the
markup today. My resolution is very clear. It rejects the idea
that the Israeli Defense Force is a child's rights abuser.
Last month, the United Nations Secretary-General Annual
Report on Children in Armed Conflict included the Israel
Defense Force on a list of groups that committed violations
against children. The report listed the Israel Defense Force
alongside terror groups like ISIS, the Taliban, and Boko Haram.
This ridiculously misguided decision follows a pattern of
anti-Semitism and anti-Israel actions by the United Nations.
Israel has demonstrated that it takes serious measures to
mitigate civilian harm. It is Hamas who purposely puts
civilians in harm's way. The United Nations should focus its
efforts on Hamas and releasing the kidnapped Israelis they
still have.
I would also like to thank my good friend Congressman Jared
Moskowitz and his staff for helping me draft this resolution. I
would also like to thank Representative Mike Lawler and Josh
Gottheimer for being original cosponsors to this resolution. I
ask for your support on this.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Is there any
further discussion?
Mr. Meeks is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. The U.N. Secretary-General's Annual Children in
Armed Conflict Report reviews and makes important findings
impacting children's rights around the globe. And the report's
included global list of states or militias who are child rights
violators is important for identifying and ending impunity for
such abuses.
But in the case of the most recent report, which lists
child rights violators, Israel has no place on this list.
Unfortunately, this is yet another example of the well-
documented anti-Israel bias at the U.N.
Unlike other countries listed in this year's annex, the
report itself notes the good-faith effort that Israel is making
to address the U.N.'s concerns, including engaging with U.N.
Secretariat special representatives to develop an action plan
to address the report's findings. In contrast with some of the
other states and entities on the list, including Hamas and the
Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the State Department has noted that
Israel is working with the U.N. to address the serious issues
outlined in the report.
At the same time, we also need to recognize that killing of
children is unacceptable whenever and wherever it happens,
including in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. We don't help our
friends by hiding findings or deflecting concerns.
Since the October 7 attack on Israel and Israel's
subsequent war against Hamas in Gaza, the conflict in Gaza has
exacted an intolerable toll, especially for children. It must
all be counted. Killing children and other innocent civilians
is a gruesome and horrific part of Hamas' and other terrorist
groups' strategy in the operations against Israel, and it
cannot be part of a successful response to that terrorism.
For that reason, we must continue to work with Israel to
ensure that it takes every precaution to prevent children in
Gaza from being harmed in this conflict. The Biden-Harris
administration has made this clear to Israel, and I have made
this clear during my conversations with Israeli officials.
However, putting Israel on par with the like of the
Taliban, Hamas, Yemen, and Russia is simply wrong to do, and it
undercuts the responsible approach with which Israel is
responding to the U.N.'s concerning findings. And in light of
this, I support this resolution. And I yield back the balance
of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Is there any further
discussion?
Ms. Manning is recognized.
Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am proud to speak in support of H.Res. 1323,
Representative Burchett's bipartisan resolution rejecting the
U.N.'s recent decision to include the IDF on a list with some
of the world's worst child rights abusers.
Mr. Chairman, on October 7, Hamas terrorists attacked
Israel in the most gruesome and horrific manner, killing 1,200
innocent civilians, including many babies and children, and
taking 250 people hostage. In the aftermath of this sickening
attack, Israel has the right and the obligation to defend
itself and its citizens and deter and defeat Hamas, which we
know has vowed to repeat October 7 again and again.
That is why it is so deeply disappointing to see that in
June, the Secretary-General's Annual Report on Children in
Armed Conflict placed our Democratic ally Israel, which was
attacked in such a barbaric manner, on a list alongside some of
the world's worst child rights abusers, including Yemen, the
DRC, Mali, and Myanmar.
What more evidence do we need of the U.N.'s outrageous bias
against Israel? This decision says it all. It is important that
Israel take steps to protect innocent civilians and to mitigate
harm. However, the U.N.'s misguided step establishes a false
equivalency between Israel, which has actually cooperated with
U.N. officials to address concerns, and the terrorist group
Hamas, which uses women and children as human shields and
targets Israeli children.
Mr. Chairman, I support this resolution, and I encourage my
colleagues to join me in the fight to reject the bias, double
standards, and a disproportionate focus on Israel at the U.N.
as it exercises its right to defend itself.
Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields. Is there any
further discussion on the resolution?
Mr. Self is recognized.
Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in enthusiastic support for this resolution. It is a
resolution, however. My question is, where is the red line?
Where is the red line where this body will start to take action
with the power of the purse against the organization that does
such a thing?
When will we take action? Where is the red line that
America will no longer allow the U.N. to do this without
consequences? This is not the first, nor will it be the last,
time that the U.N. has done something this horrific. When will
we take action? That is my question, and I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further
discussion?
There being no further discussion--oh, Mr. Castro is
recognized.
Mr. Castro. Yes. Thank you, Chairman.
And I am going to present the counterargument here. And I
have to disagree with this resolution, which undermines the
United Nations. And bear in mind that this report has come out
for about the last 25 years and has been welcomed and heralded
by both Republican and Democratic administrations.
And the resolution in front of us downplays the devastating
harm to women and children from the ongoing conflict in Gaza
and condemns a factual United Nations report that our country
has relied on for years to document harms to children. Again,
we have celebrated this report over the years.
Since 1999, the United Nations has released an annual
report on the risks that children face in armed conflict. The
United States has long supported this report and has
consistently praised it for the spotlight it places on the
harms visited upon the world's children.
The 2024 report lists, quote, Israeli armed and security
forces, among many others, State actors and non-State actors,
on the list of parties that violate the rights of children
during the ongoing conflict, in this case, during the ongoing
conflict in Gaza.
The report is fact-based and includes significant
documentation to substantiate this designation. In other words,
this was a very thorough, vetted process, unlike in front of us
today. I mean, we are considering a resolution. We haven't done
any of the work or any of the investigation to support the
resolution in front of us, which is try to negate something
that was well documented, well investigated, and has been
praised by both Republican and Democratic administrations over
the years.
Rather than pushing Israel to take basic steps to protect
the safety of children and to continue to engage with the
United Nations, this resolution simply seeks to declare an
alternate reality without any evidence to rebut the conclusions
of the United Nations report.
And so, for those reasons, I cannot support the resolution
in front of us. We have seen the tragedy of Gaza. We have seen
schools, churches, hospitals bombed. We have seen a record
number of amputees among the children of Gaza. We have seen
outright carnage.
And when this report came out, our mission to the United
Nations welcomed it. Our mission to the United Nations had
input in it. They did the hard work of investigation and
vetting and consideration, unlike what we have done in this
committee today.
And so I urge my colleagues to reject the resolution in
front of us. I yield back, Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Any further
discussion?
There being no further discussion of the resolution, the
committee will move to consideration of amendments. Does any
member wish to offer an amendment?
There being no amendments, I move that the committee report
H.Res. 1323 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--the ranking member is registered as an aye.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the motion
is agreed to.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members
across the aisle, as well.
Chairman McCaul. OK. Without objection, the motion to
reconsider is laid on the table, and the staff has authorized
making technical conforming changes. Happens to the best of us,
you know?
Pursuant to notice, I will now call up H.R. 8232 to
authorize the Secretary of State to withdraw from the United
Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the
Near East Federal funds previously made available to such
organization.
[The Bill H.R. 8232 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The bill was circulated in advance, and
the clerk shall designate the bill.
The. Clerk. H.R. 8232, to authorize the Secretary of State
to withdraw from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for
Palestine Refugees in the Near East Federal funds----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to
amendment at any point. Is there any discussion on the bill?
Mr. Mast is recognized.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As we talk about clawing back dollars that were sent to
UNRWA, I want to give a little bit of a time line on why this
is important to take place. So, January 2024, the United States
under the Biden administration paused funding to UNRWA
following reports that there were UNRWA staff that participated
in the October 7 massacre that killed over 1,200 innocent
people in Israel.
And there are other estimates that have come out since
that, some of those estimates in the time line being that an
estimated 10 percent of UNRWA employees are actually operatives
for Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad or al-Aqsa Martyrs'
Brigade or other terrorists groups operating in Gaza. Other
estimates that have come out on that time line--50 percent of
them have family ties to these groups.
Part of this time line that goes before January 24
is that UNRWA was defunded under the Trump administration, and
funding was therefore reinstituted under the Biden
administration before they came back and cut it off. And while
the decision to pause UNRWA that funding in January was
definitely a good step, it did come too late. And this is an
important part of that time line, as I know I am jumping around
in it a little bit.
The administration could have announced at any time,
really, between October 7 and January that they wanted to pause
the funding for UNRWA. But they did, whether conveniently or
not, wait just a couple of days after there was a distribution
of about $121 million to UNRWA to announce that they were going
to pause funding to them. And this bill is about clawing back
any dollars that went UNRWA.
I'm proud to say that this is a bipartisan bill, lead with
Representative Gottheimer and other members on this committee
that have been a part of this, as well, that, as I said,
directs the Secretary of State to take the steps to withdraw or
recover any Federal funds that have been made available to
UNRWA.
You know, we can keep going on the thread of time line, and
let's bring it right up to this week. Just in the past couple
days, there have been raids on UNRWA headquarters in Gaza City
by the IDF. Why? Because the UNRWA headquarters in Gaza City
has been used as a launching pad for terrorist operations by
Palestinian Islamic Jihad, by Hamas, by others. That's just
right up into these past couple days.
UNRWA continues to be a safe haven for terrorists in Gaza,
and it is therefore very important that we not only make sure
that there are no funds that go to them--that we call back any
funds that have gone to them in the past or make every effort
to do so.
I do suspect that I may hear argument from the other side.
I have heard arguments from the other side about taking dollars
from UNRWA. And one of the most prominent arguments that I have
heard has been to say, ``Listen. We can't defend UNRWA. We
can't defend what UNRWA has done and their participation in
October 7, their participation of employees that have held
hostages, their participation of employees and their family
members that have supported building tunnels and transporting
weapons. We can't defend any of that, but we have to continue
to fund them.''
That makes absolutely no sense. It is one of the worst
arguments that I have ever heard for why we shouldn't retract
any dollars that were sent to them, prevent any dollars from
being sent to them. If we cannot defend them, then we have
absolutely no business funding them and funding them with one
dollar of every American taxpayer across our country.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time, and I yield back
the remainder of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. And I strongly
support this measure. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Meeks is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. I strongly oppose this measure. It is designed
to further eliminate UNRWA's already depleted funds, which is
critical to its humanitarian response and, in fact, saving
lives in Gaza.
The State Department, the U.N. Secretary-General, and heads
of various U.N. humanitarian agencies, including the World Food
Programme, have been very, very clear. There is no replacement
of UNRWA at this time. UNRWA continues to lead the humanitarian
response in Gaza, where millions of Palestinian lives are in
danger and thousands at imminent risk of famine.
The fact remains that without UNRWA's staff and logistical
support, the humanitarian situation in Gaza will be
significantly worse than the horrific conditions that exist
today. And that would only further exacerbate the challenges in
achieving an end to this conflict.
This bill goes further than the existing Republican-led
legal prohibition on U.S. funding for UNRWA until March 2025 by
requiring the Secretary of State to recover U.S. funds for
UNRWA disbursed previously. UNRWA's financial situation is
already teetering on the edge of collapse. This bill is the
definition of really kicking someone while they are down in a
place where too many people are already hurting in hunger and
dying.
This is a measure that the State Department did not ask
for, and it does nothing to advance U.S. interests in peace and
stability and humanitarian aid in Gaza and the broader Middle
East region. In fact, this bill undermines our interests. And
that is why I oppose this measure and ask all to vote no.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Self [presiding]. The gentleman yields. Is there any
further discussion?
The gentlelady is recognized.
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8232. We have
seen repeated attempts to block any and all U.S. support for
UNRWA, most recently in the Fiscal Year 2025 State and Foreign
Operations Appropriations Bill, which restricts any funds from
being made available for contributions, grants, or payments to
UNRWA.
These measures, and this measure in particular--it is
unclear in its own wording, this half-a-page bill, whether the
Secretary of State is authorized or Secretary of State is
required to claw back whatever little funds are left from U.S.
support.
I was there in Israel 5 weeks after the horrific,
grotesque, unimaginable acts of October the 6. I was there
again in February, when we met with UNRWA officials both on the
ground in Israel as well as the Director of UNRWA--Director for
Rafah of UNRWA. He spoke of the dire conditions on the ground.
He is an American citizen. He is actually an American veteran
of more than two decades. He spent 6 years in Gaza
administering UNRWA support prewar and came back during this
war.
They are doing God's work. More than two million Gazans
have been displaced, the sanitation almost unexistant. Health
support without UNRWA--almost unexistent. Schools? Forget it.
They're shut down. The sanitation on the ground, women having
babies by cesarean section in tents without anesthesia
sometimes, dead bodies being attacked by dogs--he describes a
hellscape of what is going on with too little aid coming in.
And so this demonization of UNRWA, who has lost--as of
February had lost more than 157 of its own aid workers, dead,
killed in their attempts to bring humanitarian aid to the
starving, displaced multiple times people of Gaza--they are
doing God's work. I don't know how they do it, especially as
they describe they don't have the funds. They don't have the
trucks coming in.
The director, Scott Anderson--I commend him to you, an
American military vet putting his life at risk, along with all
of those who work with him. He spoke glowingly of those who
work with him, who sometimes go home at night and a building
that they are in is bombed and their family members killed, and
the employee comes back because they believe in the mission of
trying to stop some portion of the suffering in Gaza.
I met also with Mrs. Cindy McCain. What an extraordinary
woman, working with the World Food Programme. And she and her
team described that they work day in, day out, hand-in-hand
with UNRWA to try to do whatever they can to distribute aid
that they have, too little that it is, in an ungodly place.
But the bill has other problems because think about it.
UNRWA serves many places, including humanitarian assistance to
those in need suffering not just in Gaza but also the West
Bank, also Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan.
So, while it is interesting that everybody would just say
UNRWA is some bogeyman, they are the only ones in coordination
with World Food Programme--the World Food Programme says they
cannot be replaced if you shut them down--that is really
offering help and survival to some in Gaza.
I would also like to say I wish that the members of this
committee would take the time to talk to Mr. Scott Anderson and
others from UNRWA. It is one thing that we stopped aid to them,
but to now try to claw it back by way of disparaging the entire
organizationyou know that of the 12 people who were accused of
being--having some connectionaccused by Israel, which they have
every right and responsibility to do--having some connection to
the attack of October the 6, that investigation--multiple
investigations are ongoing.
Of the 12, all 12 were fired. Two were dead at the time.
And I think eight remain under investigation, under the one
investigation. We are talking about a handful of people, an
organization that serves millions of people.
I wish we would stop punishing those who are doing God's
work in the most ungodly of places. We need to work together to
solve--do our best to create peace and end suffering. And by
underfunding/unfunding UNRWA, you're contributing to the
problem. I yield back.
Mr. Self. The gentlelady yields. I recognize myself, and I
yield my time to Mr. Mast.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think there were some statements here that people are
going to wish that they could retract. To say that UNRWA is
doing God's work is really beyond the pale. I went over a list
of things, but let us ask some questions.
Is there anybody in here who said, ``Well, there was just
12 people working with UNRWA that were a part of working with
Hamas and other terrorist organizations''? Would anybody in
here want to say it stopped at 12? That is it; it just stopped
at 12, as my colleague Ms. Dean just put forward? It was just
12 people? That is all?
I see nobody raising their hand to say that it was just 12,
not even my colleague Ms. Dean, who just said so, because it is
not the case. It wasn't just 12 people. They have been teaching
Jew hate in UNRWA schools for years upon years. They have been
a part of building the tunnels for years upon years.
Nobody is speaking out against that. Would anybody say that
UNRWA facilities are not used by the terrorists? Is there
anybody here that wants to say that? Nobody that wants to say
that?
It was said by the ranking member, Ranking Member Meeks,
that there is no replacement for UNRWA. There absolutely is.
There are--you know, if you are talking about aid as far as aid
organizations, there are a great number under the United
Nations that work to give aid to Sudan and--I don't know; take
your pick of places across the globe--that are not UNRWA. They
are part of the United Nations, but it is not UNRWA.
It was said by the ranking member that taking--clawing back
money from UNRWA is like kicking somebody while they are down.
UNRWA is not a one-individual somebody. UNRWA is an entity that
has been a part of supporting hatred against Jews, against
Israel, a part of facilitating the attacks, holding hostages.
And as I pointed out in my remarks just a few moments ago,
literally, their headquarters in Gaza City was just raided
because of their participation in housing of Hamas and
Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists.
But I would ask one further question in my remarks, and I
don't know if--I am happy to yield time to Ms. Dean if she
would like to answer this. But do you agree that President
Biden made the right decision when he defunded UNRWA, or was
that just a moment--another moment of cognitive lapse by the
President? Happy to yield time.
Ms. Dean. I am not interested in your quiz. I really reject
this bill. Thank you.
Mr. Mast. She should be interested in this quiz because if
you can't answer questions about whether it was just 12 UNRWA
or whether it's more systemic, like, 10, 20, 30 percent what
their facilities are being used for, where U.S. taxpayer
dollars are going to, if a U.S. representative is not
interested in a quiz about where U.S. tax dollars are going
abroad I think that really points to a much more systemic issue
that's going on here.
In that, I thank you, Mr. Self, for yielding me the time
and I yield you back the 1:30 that's remaining.
Mr. Self. The gentleman yields. Is there any further
discussion?
There being no further discussion of the bill, the
committee will move to consideration of amendments. Does any
member wish to offer an amendment?
Mr. McCormick, you are recognized.
Dr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk, No. 196.
Mr. Self. The chair--the clerk shall distribute the
amendment. The clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 8232 offered by Mr. McCormick
of Georgia. Page1, line 4, strike the secretary and insert----
Mr. Self. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
[The Amendment offered by Dr. McCormick follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Self. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on his
amendment.
Dr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. I'm
glad the committee is bringing this important bill from my
colleague, Representative Mast, for markup.
For the sake of time I'll keep this short and sweet. UNRWA
represents the worst of the United Nations, is duplicative.
Agency hired staff who participated in the October 7th attacks,
had Hamas tunnels dug underneath their headquarters, and has
promoted anti-Semitic education for years.
Most reasonable people on either side of the aisle agree
they should not receive U.S. funding, which is why there
currently is a prohibition on funding UNRWA until March 2025
and, in my opinion, maybe for the rest of their pitiful
existence.
This is a great bill that seeks to ensure that U.S. follows
through on withdrawals from this corrupt and anti-Semitic
organization.
My amendment today would simply strengthen the bill by
placing a 90-day deadline on the secretary for withdrawal from
UNRWA rather than just given an arbitrary requirement.
This is in line with the spirit and the intention of the
underlying bill. I ask for my colleagues' support on this
amendment.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Self. The gentleman yields back.
Do any other members seek recognition?
Ranking Member Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Yes, I oppose this amendment for the same
reasons that I oppose the underlying bill.
It will lead to further misery of the Palestinians who are
already struggling and further destabilize the broader Middle
East region, including among our key allies in the region such
as Jordan and countries already on the brink of conflict like
Lebanon.
I oppose this amendment and the underlying bill, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Self. The gentleman yields.
Is there any further discussion?
There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
on the amendment offered by Representative McCormick, No. 196.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
All opposed signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the
amendment is agreed to.
Are there any further amendments?
Seeing no further amendments, I move that the committee
report H.R. 8232 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. I ask for a roll call vote.
Mr. Self. 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. 8924, the Protecting
American Innovation and Development Act of 2024. This bill was
circulated in advance. The clerk shall designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 8924, to require the Secretary of Commerce
to identify and report on foreign adversary entities using
intellectual----
Mr. Self. Without objection, the first reading is dispensed
with and the bill is considered read and open to amendment at
any point.
[The Bill H.R. 8924 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Self. Is there any discussion on this bill?
Mrs. Young is recognized.
Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Chairman.
I want to also thank Ranking Member Meeks for holding
today's markup and for considering my bill, H.R. 8924, the
Protecting American Innovation and Development Act, or the PAID
Act, of 2024.
I also want to thank Chairman Moolenaar of the Select
Committee on CCP for co-leading this bill with me. The PAID Act
requires the Secretary of Commerce to identify and report on
all foreign adversary entities including those affiliated with
the Chinese Communist Party, Russia, North Korea, and Iran who
steal American intellectual property and trade secrets of dual-
use technology that is important to our national security.
According to the FBI, the CCP steals up to $600 billion
worth of U.S. intellectual property every year. So protecting
U.S. IP should be and is a bipartisan issue.
Last year, the Indo-Pacific Subcommittee heard testimony
from American business Phantom Metrics, which makes advanced
technology for the semiconductor industry. Their IP was stolen
but the U.S. Government has been unable to slow down or punish
the CCP company benefiting from stolen IP.
We cannot take action to hold foreign adversaries
accountable for stealing our IP and trade secrets if we do not
know who the bad actors are. The PAID Act creates a transparent
process around the IP theft and simply requires the Commerce
secretary to submit to Congress a report on all foreign
adversary entities in violation of this bill.
This bill provides U.S. small and medium-sized businesses
with a voice and harnesses industry to provide the rationale
and basis for inclusion on this report.
For too long the CCP has exploited loopholes in our courts
including the International Trade Commission to steal IP
without consequences.
The PAID Act is a crucial first step to expose foreign
adversary entities stealing U.S. IP of dual-use technology
including hypersonics, advanced computing and space technology.
It's time to hold the CCP and any other foreign adversary
companies accountable and I urge my colleagues to support this
bill, and I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Self. The gentlelady yields back.
Is there any further discussion?
The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, and I regretfully must oppose this
measure. Intellectual property theft is a serious challenge but
this bill is not an effective way to address it. This bill
needs additional vetting and negotiations.
This committee has had numerous hearings and briefings with
the Bureau of Industry and Security including a hearing just
this spring with the undersecretary of this.
At None of these hearings do I recall this particular bill
or the mechanism proposed within it being raised. The
Department of Commerce opposes H.R. 8924 and does not believe
that export controls are an effective way to tackle IP theft
and patent infringement.
There are substantive problems with this bill. First,
despite its focus on export controls and patents it is
frequent--and its frequent use of the term license, the bill
never clarifies whether the licenses it is referring to are
patent licenses or export licenses, making this bill difficult
to implement.
Second, it calls on the End User Review Committee to
solicit and review petitions from U.S. persons regarding
potential foreign entities that are using a patent or coveted
trade secret without a license.
This committee does not have the capacity or expertise to
do this work. In fact, forcing the End User Review Committee to
take on this role would divert critical resources away from
addressing the far more acute national security risk posed by
the kinds of entities it generally adds to the Entity List.
In short, this bill is not an effective means to tackle IP
theft. In January 2023 President Biden already signed into law
the Protecting American Intellectual Property Act to deter the
theft of U.S. intellectual property by non-U.S. actors through
sanctions.
I was proud to push that bill to the floor in the final
days of the 117th Congress and led debate in favor of that
legislation. That bill was an important response to
intellectual property theft.
Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about this
legislation. Therefore, I must oppose this measure and yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Self. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further discussion?
Mrs. Kim, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Mr. Meeks, for raising
your concerns.
And with respect to the bill not being properly vetted and
there is no Commerce TA I would like to respond and emphasize
once again that the PAID Act creates a reporting mechanism that
boosts public transparency on foreign adversary entities who
illegally acquire U.S. IP or trade secrets or technology that
is important to our national security.
This bill has also been vetted by the United States Chamber
of Commerce and also the Judiciary Committee and we also
incorporated many feedback from each of the tech stakeholders,
and we did our due diligence of reaching out to the Commerce
Department more than a week ago for their TA.
While we have been eager to work in good faith with BIS
they only got back to us less than 24 hours before this markup.
Unfortunately, most of their comments were based off the
version that did not include the red lines from the Judiciary
Committee, which we work in very good faith for that, and
regarding your concerns regarding the infringement on U.S.
patent system, we cleared this bill with Judiciary Committee's
IP Subcommittee as well.
We also incorporated all of their red lines to ensure this
bill does not overlap with existing U.S. patent laws and
regulating entities.
All this bill does is to protect our U.S. IP from the bad
actors. So with that, I hope you will come to terms and support
this bill. Thank you very much.
Mr. Self. The gentlelady yields back.
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Meeks. Let me just ask--oh, before she yields back I
wonder if Mrs. Kim would yield just a second.
Mr. Self. Mrs. Kim, will you yield time to the ranking
member?
Mr. Meeks. I would love to be able to work with you on this
bill. I really would. I think that that's why I said I
regretfully had to oppose.
But in the future--I just could not vote for this now but I
would love to work with you in the future. Thank you. I yield
back.
Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you very much, Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Self. The gentlelady yields back.
Is there any further discussion?
Seeing no further discussion on the bill does any member
wish to offer an amendment?
Mrs. Kim?
Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you for recognizing me again.
I have an amendment to H.R. 8924, the PAID Act.
Mr. Self. The clerk shall distribute the Kim amendment in
the nature of a substitute number 70.
The clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.
8924 offered by Mrs. Kim of California. Strike all after the
enacting clause and insert the following.
Mr. Self. Without objection further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
[The Amendment offered by Mrs. Kim follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Self. The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes on the
amendment.
Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, and I want to thank my
colleague Representative Darrell Issa and the Judiciary
Committee's IP Subcommittee for working with me on this common
sense and technical edits to my bill.
My amendment to the PAID Act does a couple of things.
First, it requires the Commerce Department's End User Review
Committee, who is in charge of reviewing and identifying
foreign adversary entities who have committed IP theft, to
consult other Federal agencies and operate in accordance with
Federal patent and trade secret laws.
This will prevent unintentionally creating a new patent or
trade secret law and will ensure the End User Review Committee
consults IP experts in other Federal agencies.
It also includes provisions to exclude accidental
infringement situations and to make sure we don't apply the law
to invalid or unenforceable patents.
Additionally, protections are included against patent
trolls and definitions have been tailored to ensure the bill
does what it was intended to do, to target malign adversary
entities that get away with stealing U.S. IP while providing
guardrails for our U.S. companies.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I
yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Self. The gentlelady yields back.
Do any other members seek recognition? The ranking member
is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. Yes. I have to oppose this ANS as it does not
address the concerns that I've raised about the underlying
measure.
It remains unworkable for me, for the End User Review
Committee to take on this and on export controls. It is not an
effective measure to address this problem and, as I said, I'd
love to work in the future with Representative Kim.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Self. The gentleman yields.
Do any other members seek recognition?
There being no further discussion, do any members wish to
offer an amendment to the Kim Amendment in the nature of a
substitute?
There being no further amendments, the question now occurs
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 70 offered
by Representative Kim.
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 is agreed to.
There being no further amendments, I move that the
committee report H.R. 8924 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. I'd ask for a roll call vote.
Mr. Self. 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. 8892, Missile
Technology Controls Revision Act. The bill was circulated in
advance. The clerk shall designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 8892, to modify certain provisions relating
to bilateral agreements and AUKUS defense trade cooperation
under the Arms Export Control Act and----
Mr. Self. Without objection, the first reading is dispensed
with and the bill is considered read and open to amendment at
any point.
[The Bill H.R. 8892 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Self. Is there any discussion on the bill? The
gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Chairman Self.
The Missile Technology Control Regime, or MTCR as it's
known, is a cold war era nonbinding political agreement with 35
nations including Russia, and it was originally designed to
curtail the export and the proliferation of ballistic missiles
and WMD delivery vehicles.
It applies a strong presumption of denial on exports
including UAVs and cruise missiles. This is something that as a
child of the cold war was seared into my memory when I was in
high school and going into college and having some of these
collapse of the Soviet Union era backstops being put in place.
However, technology has advanced and we have deepened our
cooperation and collaboration on advanced technologies with
allied nations through partnerships like NATO, the Five Eyes,
AUKUS, and the guidelines the MTCR have not evolved to meet
current threats.
So, for example, the MTCR operates via consensus and past
attempts to reform the export policies have been unsuccessful
when countries like Russia have the ability to veto anything it
doesn't like.
Additionally, the MTCR has no independent means to verify
whether member states are adhering to its guidelines nor a
mechanism to penalize states if they violate them.
We do have other--we do have other organizations like the
IAEA--the International Atomic Energy Agency--that has
investigative powers at least and we have None of that in this.
The United States has already overcome the presumption of
denial with the exports of MQ-9s, Global Hawk, and Tomahawk
cruise missiles, each of which was subject to an interagency
review process that delayed these decisions.
So I was pleased to see the committee pass my bill, the
AUKUS Submarine Transfer Authorization Act and its subsequent
inclusion into the Fiscal Year 1924 NDAA.
However, it's my worry that the MTCR will stand in the way
of current collaboration on AUKUS, especially on pillar two
issues, the next step.
And let's not forget as we sit here today, Mr. Chairman,
both the United Kingdom and Australia are still waiting on
their defense trade exemptions.
We cannot let this opportunity to enhance collaboration
with our allies be stifled by a bureaucratic process littered
with red tape, and as such the United States is ceding its
sovereignty and allowing countries like Russia to have
influence over how we engage with our allies and partners. That
does not advance the national security interests of the United
States, in my opinion.
The weakness of the MTCR is not only felt by our allies and
partners but it's also felt by U.S. companies losing their
competitive edge as strategic partners move away from American
products and instead choose foreign competitors.
In fact, in April 2024 a roundtable hosted by this
committee industry leaders there detailed at length the lack of
transparency and uncertainty caused by the MTCR in both the
defense and in the civil sectors.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute in my bill to
H.R. 8892, the Missile Technology Controls Revision Act, is a
simple and narrowly scoped bill or amendment, I should say.
It removes the statutory requirement of the MTCR from the
Arms Export Control Act, thus allowing for expedited trade with
countries the President determines to be eligible for a defense
trade exemption.
Additionally, the bill requires comprehensive reporting to
help collaborate--calibrate, sorry--future approaches to the
MTCR.
The ANS was negotiated in good faith with my Democrat
colleagues and where we incorporated their desire for a
reporting requirement to shed light on the delinquencies around
licensing times and procedures, which I think, frankly,
enhances the underlying bill.
And what's more, this exemption language is not new. Nearly
a year ago today 22 of my Democrat colleagues supported the
same legal exemption when they supported the ranking member's
substitute amendment to both the KOALA and the BRITS Act, and I
would just rhetorically ask what has changed in the world since
a year ago?
So while this administration has left exemptions for our
AUKUS partners on the table the Houthis are getting--gaining
access to these covered technologies in the Red Sea,
indiscriminately attacking more than 60 vessels.
China has fielded countless ballistic missiles and drone
systems and Russia and North Korea are proliferating these
capabilities in places like Ukraine where the Defense
Intelligence Agency has confirmed the appearance of North
Korean missile debris, all of which destabilize national
security interests of the United States.
It's time to reform our approach to the MTCR and allow for
enduring cooperation with allies and partners in the face of
aggressive action from our adversaries.
I want to point out--clarify one thing that the bill does
not do. It does not pull the United States out of the MTCR or
from the obligations of global security cooperation. It simply
removes policy decisions surrounding the MTCR by allowing the
President to have the agency to exempt allies and partners from
outdated regulatory burdens and I believe that this act
reflects the current security realities and needs to meet the
pace of relevance and flexibility on the global stage, Mr.
Chairman.
And so I urge support of the ANS and I yield back.
Mr. Self. The gentleman yields.
Is there any further discussion? The ranking member is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you.
I really appreciate the gentleman from Michigan's intent. I
think that they are well intended. But I must oppose this
measure due to its detrimental impacts on global
nonproliferation efforts and the vital importance of protecting
and safeguarding sensitive missile technology and the
administration's ongoing diplomatic and defense dialogs which
this legislation undercuts, I believe.
The Missile Technology Control Regime, or the MTCR, is a
decades-old political agreement among like-minded states in the
United States pioneered along with the G-7 in order to limit
the proliferation of missiles and sensitive missile
technologies.
These long-range missiles and rockets are among mankind's
most advanced weapons of war and can be employed to deliver the
most destructive payloads including nuclear, chemical, or
biological agents.
This agreement the MTCR has instituted--was instituted to
address and limit the increasing proliferation of these
destructive weapons and now comprises over 30 countries
committed to these objectives.
The MTCR does so by providing a framework for standards and
regulations as well as coordination and control over such
transfers and exports and establishes mutually reinforcing
safeguards.
This bill will preemptively and prematurely create
exemptions from the MTCR for the most sensitive missile systems
and related technologies on the planet and weaken the U.S.'
important structure of defense technology controls enshrined in
the Arms Export Control Act.
This bill would also open the door for other states to
loosen their constraints on such transfers of long-range
missiles and rocket systems as well.
The administration opposes this bill as do multiple outside
organizations such as the Arms Control Association, the Foreign
Policy for America, and others.
Supporters on the other side of the aisle may claim such a
step is necessary to provide, quote, ``additional
flexibility,'' unquote, or support to certain NATO or AUKUS
partners to develop advanced missiles or drone capabilities.
But this is not the case.
The administration has stated to relevant congressional
committees that it has plenty of discretion and MTCR
implementation, and its current MTCR commitments have never
impeded the U.S. from meeting security cooperation objectives
with NATO, AUKUS, or beyond.
All transfers that fall under MTCR category items are
evaluated on a case by case basis and there is strong
confidence and support among allies and partners for
maintaining this important arms control regime.
Specific to AUKUS, neither the U.K. nor Australia are
planning comparable preemptive changes to their respective
defense controls to allow a license-free transfer of the most
highly capable and sensitive MTCR items.
Any modification is best done jointly with our AUKUS
partners and in a thoughtful, coordinated manner. More broadly,
unilateral removal of MTCR categories from important defense
licensing controls will have a negative impact on the
confidence of allies and other nations in our commitment to
export controls and multilateral agreements.
We are stronger together when we operate multilaterally and
coordinate with our allies to uphold important arms control
agreements and regimes in the face of those states who wish to
destroy such efforts.
Therefore, I must oppose this measure and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Self. The gentleman yields.
Is there any further discussion?
Mrs. Kim is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Chairman.
I support this amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by Representative Huizenga.
This week we have four Indo-Pacific partners participating
in the NATO SummitAustralia, Japan, New Zealand, and South
Korea.
The participation of our Indo-Pacific partners demonstrates
that the threats we now face can no longer be siloed into
regions.
Mr. Chairman, we are faced with an unholy alliance. Today
we see this unholy alliance using Ukraine as its battlefield.
North Korean missile debris has recently been uncovered in
Ukraine. These are said to be KN-2030's or hostile missiles, a
short-range ballistic missile that Putin is deploying in his
terror campaign against innocent Ukraines.
At the same time, North Korean missiles are being battle
tested for potential use by Kim Jong-un against the United
States, our treaty allies, our MTCR partners South Korea and
Japan.
Mr. Chairman, the Missile Technology Control Regime does
not impose any legally binding obligations on MTCR members. It
will never punish Russia for not adhering to its guidelines nor
will Russia be removed from MTCR.
I support this amendment because it eliminates an outdated
provision in the Arms Export Control Act. What served us in the
1990's on the heels of the collapse of the Soviet Union is now
hampering our ability to work with our allies and partners to
deter against our adversaries--Russia, Iran, North Korea.
So I urge my colleagues to vote yes on Representative
Huizenga's ANS and to ensure U.S. policy has the flexibility it
needs to address the challenges we're faced with today.
I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Self. The gentlelady yields. Is there any further----
Mr. Huizenga. Well, Mr. Chairman, sorry. Will the
gentlelady yield for a moment?
Mrs. Kim of California. Yes, I yield to you, Representative
Huizenga.
Mr. Huizenga. Thank you. The--I just want to make a couple
of quick points on this.
The MTCR is a nonbinding, informal political arrangement
between 35 countries. We're not legally bound to follow the
MTCR but we have.
That is not actually true with a number of the other
signatories to that including Russia, and as you pointed out,
we have seen what has been happening in the Ukrainian conflict.
I will also point out that the U.S. has changed its
interpretation of the MTCR in the last administration.
But wait. Before this becomes political somehow, the Obama
administration also changed their interpretation of it in 2012.
So that was when--allowing South Korea to develop longer-range
missiles with U.S. technology.
So it was good enough for the Obama administration. In 2020
the Trump administration implemented changes to the unmanned
aerial systems--the UASes--overcoming that presumption of
denial and, by the way, this administration has kept both of
those changed interpretations in place.
So if it's good enough for the Biden administration to
accept those changes from the Obama administration and the
Trump administration I don't understand why we would not have
that same eye toward this particular situation.
So I will have to admit I don't understand quite the
objection to this from my colleagues and friends on the other
side but--or the opposition of this administration.
They've accepted--they've accepted changes to the
interpretation of the MTCR already under the last two
administrations.
So with that, I appreciate my friend Mrs. Kim and I yield
back the time to her.
Chairman McCaul [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
Any further discussion? Oh, Mr. Meeks?
No, Ms. Wild.
Ms. Wild. I'd like to yield to my ranking member Mr. Meeks.
Thank you.
Mr. Meeks. Yes. Let me just remind my colleague that in
December I know Chairman McCaul and, I believe, over 100 other
Republicans voted in favor of Fiscal Year 1924 NDAA which in
Section 1343 upheld these very same missile transfer controls
which continue in force of law.
The bill before us today, H.R. 8892, would both overturn
that vote and existing MTCR safeguards and controls.
And I yield back to the gentlelady.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Any further discussion?
There being no further discussion of the bill the committee
will move to consideration of amendments. Does any member wish
to offer an amendment?
Mr. Huizenga?
Mr. Huizenga. Mr. Chairman, I think--I believe the offering
of the ANS is in order so that would be my offer, my--sorry,
my--that's what I would offer to the committee. Sorry.
Chairman McCaul. So the clerk shall distribute the Huizenga
Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 101.
The clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of the substitute to
H.R. 8892 offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan. Strike all after
the enacting clause and insert the following. Section 1 short--
--
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
[The Amendment offered by Mr. Huizenga follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huizenga. Well, Mr. Chairman, in lieu of going back
over my comments earlier I would just simply say that I believe
that we are seeing the United States cede our sovereignty in
allowing other countries like Russia to influence and affect
how we engage with our allies and partners.
We know that in the very important legislation that we had
had before this committee not that long ago regarding the AUKUS
submarine transfers we see that both the United Kingdom and
Australia are waiting for their defense trade exemptions and we
cannot let this opportunity to enhance collaboration with our
allies be stifled by the red tape.
This is about national security, not just for the United
States, I would argue, for our interests around the world and
those interests of our allies so--and again, I would just
reiterate that this does not remove us from that.
My friend and colleague from New York was saying that it
has the force of law yet it is not law. It is interpreted that
way.
Yet, both the Obama administration, the Trump
administration, have recognized exemptions to that and the
Biden administration has accepted those exemptions and have
maintained those exemptions that were put in place.
So, again, doesn't pull the United States out of the MTCR
or from the obligations that we have of global security
cooperation but it does give us the flexibility to make sure
that our allies have the weapons and tools and technology that
they need and as my friend from California, Mrs. Kim, had
highlighted, South Korea and Taiwan and other places are vital
to the Indo-Pacific interests that we have.
And I would just point out again that we are seeing North
Korea technology being deployed in Ukraine or at least evidence
of that that is there. So we know that--we know that there are
adherents to the MTCR that are not actually living up to their
obligations with that.
So we need to make sure that the United States does not
handcuff itself that way.
So, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Any other member seek recognition?
There being no further discussion do any members wish to
offer an amendment to the Huizenga Amendment in the nature of a
substitute?
There being no further amendments the question now occurs
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
Representative Huizenga.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Ally those opposed signify by saying no.
In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the
amendment is agreed to.
There being no further amendments I move that the committee
report H.R. 8892 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. With that I ask for a roll call.
Chairman McCaul. A roll call has been requested. Pursuant
to the chair's previous announcement this vote will be
postponed.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 8936, the Rohingya
Genocide Accountability and Protection Act. The bill was
circulated in advance and the clerk shall designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 8936, to provide protection, support and
humanitarian assistance to Rohingya refugees and internally
displaced people as well as promote accountability----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection the first reading is
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to
amendment at any point.
[The Bill H.R. 8936 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. Is there any discussion on the bill?
Ranking Member Mr. Meeks is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I support this measure, the Rohingya GAP Act, and I'm proud
to have introduced it to support a pathway for Rohingya from
the genocide and crimes against humanity perpetrated against
them, and I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for working with
me and being the lead Republican on this important bill.
After decades of persecution in Burma, the plight of the
Rohingya reached new lows over the last 10 years. The Burmese
military's attacks against Rohingya forced nearly 100,000 of
them to seek refuge to Bangladesh in 2016.
In 2017, 9,000 perished and another 740,000 were forced to
flee because of the military's brutality. Thanks to sustained
pressures from Congress, in March 2022 Secretary Blinken
determined that members of the Burmese military committed
genocide and crimes against humanity against Rohingya.
Since the Holocaust this was only the eighth time that the
U.S. Government made such a determination. Prior to the
February 2021 military coup in Burma over 870,000 Rohingya
refugees were in Bangladesh with nearly 600,000 remaining in
Burma.
After conducting its illegal coup the military began yet
another campaign of violence against the Rohingya people. The
result has been a more protracted tragedy for Rohingya in
Burma.
Today, there are over 980,000 Rohingya refugees in
Bangladesh, an increase of over a hundred thousand in just
three and a half years, and over 148,000 Rohingya remain
internally displaced in Burma itself.
I was proud to have President Biden sign my BURMA Act into
law in 2022 to hold the junta accountable for the coup and the
ensuing violence.
But that bill did not address the escalating crises facing
Rohingya today. The bill in front of us acknowledges that we
need to tackle the larger Burma crises and the plight of the
Rohingya simultaneously because the reality is that despite the
determination that they have experienced genocide and crimes
against humanity international donor funding to address rising
violence and the continued influx of refugees into Bangladesh
has decreased over the last 2 years.
Facilities and services have been cut, straining the
Bangladesh government and host communities. According to the
U.N. Refugee Agency, living conditions in the densely populated
camps are dire, particularly for women and children who are
vulnerable to violence and exploitation and human trafficking.
Last year, due to funding shortfalls the World Food
Programme was forced to cut food vouchers for displaced
Rohingya to just $.27 a day. This is a growing crisis that
requires the United States to lead. It is our moral
responsibility to do more to protect and support Rohingya after
they have suffered so much.
For this reason, the Rohingya GAP Act calls on the U.S.
Government to comprehensively address the crises and support
the Rohingya community.
To do so it authorizes the designation of a Special
Coordinator for Rohingya Atrocities Prevention and Response to
elevate the crises and coordinate Rohingya policy among the
interagency.
It calls on the State Department and USAID to bolster
protection efforts and humanitarian assistance and ensure
Rohingya refugees receive rations at a level that meets basic
needs.
Finally, it promotes receive ration at a level that meets
basic needs. Finally, it promotes justice and accountability
for atrocities by establishing a new conflict observatory for
Burma to monitor and report on the ongoing violence in Burma
and it authorizes $10 million to support atrocity crime
investigations, documentation and casework, as well as
transitional justice and accountability mechanisms.
The bill showcases that America is serious about its
commitment to human rights. This bill builds on the strong
bipartisan signal Congress sent with the passage of the BURMA
Act to demonstrate that we have not forgotten the Rohingya and
are committed to finding a--to help find a sustainable path out
of genocide and crimes against humanity.
This bill is supported by a number of human rights and
Rohingya diaspora groups including Human Rights Watch,
Americans for Rohingya, Refugees International, Global Center
for Responsibility to Protect, U.S. Campaign for Burma, and
Women's Peace Network.
So, therefore, I strongly support this measure and urge all
of my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Is there any further discussion on the bill?
I recognize myself. I strongly support this. I'm proud to
be the lead co-sponsor on my side of the aisle.
Six years ago Burma's military launched a genocidal
campaign against the Rohingya people, razing villages, raping,
torturing, killing thousands of Rohingya men, women, and
children. As a result, over a million Rohingya have fled across
South and Southeast Asia.
The February 2021 military coup in Burma only exacerbated
the situation, destroying a budding democracy while doubling
down on ethnic cleansing. That is why Ranking Member Meeks and
I introduced the BURMA Act during the previous Congress.
It placed sanctions on the Burmese military, authorized
humanitarian aid, and pushed for a genocidal determination. In
March 2022 after our bill was signed into law Secretary Blinken
determined that the Burmese military had, indeed, committed
genocide and crimes against humanity on the Rohingya people.
Three years later Burma remains embroiled in a bloody civil
war with escalating violence and continued genocide against the
Rohingya people and more than a million displaced people over
the past 6 months, including over 500,000 Rohingyans.
So today I'm proud to lead the Rohingya GAP Act with
Ranking Member Meeks. This resolution continues our bipartisan
support in addressing the crisis in Burma and the Rohingya
genocide.
This bill is consistent with the BURMA Act and addresses
issues that remain over 2 years after its passage. It will
provide humanitarian assistance and hold those accountable for
crimes against humanity.
This bill also authorizes the president to appoint a
special coordinator to concentrate all relevant resources in
the State Department and USAID to more effectively address this
ongoing crisis.
So I urge my colleagues to support it and show the world
that the U.S. Congress will not let genocide go unanswered.
Is there any further discussion on the bill?
Ms. Wild is recognized.
Ms. Wild. Oh, not yet. Sorry. No. Sorry.
Chairman McCaul. Ms. Wild yields back. There being no
further discussion of the bill the committee will move to
consideration of amendments.
Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
Mr. Huizenga is recognized.
Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment
at the desk.
Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
The clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 8936 offered by Mr. Huizenga
of Michigan. Page 21 after line 19 insert the following and
redesignate subsequent sections accordingly. Section 12,
adherence to American----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
[The Amendment offered by Mr. Huizenga follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do want to say
a sincere thanks to you and Ranking Member Meeks for bringing
this important legislation forward.
As co-chair of the first ever congressional Burma Caucus
these issues are close to home for me and my district in
southwest Michigan where nearly 5,000 Burmese reside in the
Battle Creek and Springfield area.
The brutal military junta in Burma is something that needs
more attention from the mainstream media. The indiscriminate
killing of civilians throughout Burma is horrific, but the
arrest, detention, and torture, sexual violence and murder of
the Rohingya is unacceptable and rightly earns the genocide
determination by the State Department in 2022.
Now, yesterday Secretary Yellen, our Treasury Secretary,
was in front of our Financial Services Committee, which I am
also a member of, discussing international situations.
She's required to do that once a year and come in and talk
about the international sanctions and different things that are
happening internationally, and I pushed her on this about a
piece of legislation, which I'll get into, but also the current
sanctions that are on the Myanmar government--the junta--right
now with MOGE which is their oil and gas company, their central
bank and others, and we're trying to work with this
administration to make sure that the sanctions that are in
place currently are being fully enforced--that is extremely
important--but also we want to expand and make more robust
those current sanctions.
So it's my hope that through the Burma Caucus and by
offering bipartisan initiatives such as my bill, the BRAVE
Burma Act, which I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor, by the
way, as it cuts the military junta off from resources it uses
to launch attacks against the Rohingya, Congress can elevate
the voices of those who must survive under the brutal military
junta in Burma.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and in continuance of
current law it clarifies that of all the support and assistance
provided pursuant to this bill shall be provided in a manner
consistent with the American Servicemembers Protection Act--the
ASPA--and the focus of this bill, 8936, should be on elevating
the voices of the Rohingya and ensuring future participation.
My amendment refocuses the underlying message of the bill
by ensuring legislative clarity and removes attempts to tacitly
expand the ASPA beyond its current interpretation. So, broadly
speaking, under the ASPA the United States can provide support
to, quote, ``international efforts to bring to justice foreign
nationals accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against
humanity,'' close quote.
However, using H.R. 8939 as a platform to inject an
expansion or reinterpretation of the current law is not what I
believe the Rohingya or this issue deserves so that's why I put
that amendment forward.
So I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, preserve
the legislative clarity and intent of Congress and, for God's
sake, let's help those people in Burma. They need the help.
This administration needs to step forward, be strong, make
sure that we are cutting off the--especially the jet fuel and
the other avenues of which the junta has been gaining the
opportunity to literally wage war and genocide on their own
people.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it and I yield
back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Let me first say thank you for your--all your good work for
the people of Burma and on this measure as well. I support this
amendment as it simply reaffirms existing law. All funding and
activities must be consistent with the American Servicemembers
Protection Act.
So with that, I say I support it. Do any other members seek
recognition?
Ms. Wild is recognized.
Ms. Wild. Thank you. I oppose this amendment and I am
disappointed that it is being offered despite the bipartisan
and collaborative spirit in which we negotiated this bill.
After agreeing to not include this language in the bipartisan
text the majority is now trying to add it via amendment.
This kind of cynical move undermines the trust and the
bipartisan spirit of this committee. I would also note that
this amendment is entirely unnecessary because the prohibition
is already in the statute.
Moreover, my bill does not mention the ICC so I see this as
an attempt to play politics when we're dealing with the serious
issue of genocide and crimes against humanity conducted against
Rohingya.
I yield.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
Any further discussion? There being--oh, Mr. Huizenga is
recognized.
Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll just note that I didn't once utter ICC. That is not
the goal--the intent of this. I'm trying to make sure that we
are focused on it.
I'm not sure what negotiations were had directly by our
colleague who was either sitting in and was a part of this or
the ranking member. I was not a part of that. I believe that
this is a simple and proper clarification of current law to
make sure that we are headed in the right direction for the
benefit of the Burmese people who need the help.
And I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
And I agree, it simply reaffirms existing law. Any further
discussion?
There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
on the amendment offered by Representative Huizenga, No. 102.
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 is agreed to.
Are there any further amendments?
There being no further amendments, I move that the
committee report H.R. 8936 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.
Ms. Wild. May I request a recorded vote?
Chairman McCaul. A roll call vote has been requested.
Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement this vote will be
postponed.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table. Staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming
changes.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 7151, the Export
Control Enforcement and Enhancement Act. The bill was
circulated in advance and the clerk shall designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 7151, to amend the Export Control Reform
Act of 2018, to provide for expedited consideration of
proposals for additional toremovals from or other modifications
with respect to entities on the Entity List, and for other
purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America and Congress
assembled. Section 1, short title. This act may be cited as the
Export Control Enforcement and Enhancement Act. Section 2,
expedited----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to
amendment at any point.
[The Bill H.R. 7151 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the Wagner Amendment in
the nature of a substitute was circulated to members in
advance, shall be considered as read, and will be treated as
original text for purposes of the amendment.
Is there any discussion on the bill?
The chair recognizes himself. The Chinese Communist Party
continues to overwhelm our traditional export enforcement
capabilities with dozens of shell companies and subsidiaries
subverting our controls.
For example, each year China steals upwards of $600 billion
worth of American technology through these efforts. This bill
and its amendment assist with countering this issue by
providing every member of the End User Review Committee with an
equal opportunity to propose additions to the Entity List.
Currently among the representatives on the EURC are
Commerce, State, Defense, and Energy, but Commerce is the only
one that can bring these additions to a vote.
Expanding this policy will allow the other national
security-minded members of the EURC a fair say in these
decisions.
With that, I yield back.
Is there any further discussion? Mr. Bera is recognized.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I support this bill and thank Congresswoman Wagner and
Chairman McCaul for working to make this a bipartisan measure,
and it's a good bill.
I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Any further discussion?
[No response.]
There being no further discussion of the bill, the
committee will move to consideration of amendments.
Do any members wish to offer an amendment?
[No response.]
There being no amendments, I move that the committee report
H.R. 7151, 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.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
And staff is authorized to make any technical and
conforming changes.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 8566, the Mobilizing
and Enhancing Georgia's Options for Building Accountability,
Resilience, and Independence Act.
The bill was circulated in advance.
And the clerk shall designate the bill.
The Clerk. ``H.R. 8566, To require reports and certain
actions with respect to the Republic of Georgia.''----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is
dispensed with.
The bill is considered read and open to amendment at any
point.
[The bill H.R. 8566 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the Wilson 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.
[The amendment offered by Mr. Wilson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. Is there any discussion on the bill?
Mr. Wilson is recognized.
Mr. Wilson. And I offered my amendment in the nature of a
substitute which includes important provisions from legislation
offered by our friends, Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Jim Risch.
I am grateful for their expertise and leadership in support of
the free and democratic nation of Georgia.
I appreciate the opportunity for us to work together in a
bipartisan and bicameral way to meet this critical moment.
Republicans and Democrats, House Members and Senators stand
together for the people of the Nation of Georgia.
The Georgian people have heroically taken action in defense
of their democracy at great risk. It is my honor to work with
my colleagues to help safeguard a bright future for the people
of the Nation of Georgia.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further discussion on the bill?
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman McCaul. Yes, Mr. Wilson?
Mrs. Wagner?
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll yield to Mr. Wilson, if you weren't finished, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Yes. No, go ahead.
Mrs. Wagner. OK. Thank you.
I want to say I'm in full support of Mr. Wilson's piece of
legislation.
And, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I was over
questioning Chairman Powell in Financial Services and dashing
as fast as I could to get here.
Chairman McCaul. We tried to slow it down as much as we
could.
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you.
Chairman McCaul. So, sorry about that.
Mrs. Wagner. And with your indulgence, I want to thank you
and Chairman Meeks and would like to speak briefly on my
legislation, the Export Control Enforcement and Enhancement Act
in markup today.
The People's Republic of China is bent on supplanting the
United States not only as a global engine of innovation,
discovery, and advancement, but also as the world's dominant
military power. To do so, it seeks to turn our strengths
against us using a mixture of coercion, predation, and outright
intellectual property theft to gain an edge.
The U.S. export control regime is a key defense against
China's subversion of American ingenuity. Equally important,
export controls are a powerful tool against adversaries like
Iran and Russia, which rely on access to foreign technology to
support their violent and destabilizing agendas.
Vigilantly updating and enforcing our export controls is
more important today than ever. China, Iran, and Russia have
formed a new ``axis of evil'' to attack our national security
interests and help each other circumvent U.S. export controls.
They have created a massive procurement network designed to
maintain the flow of controlled Western technologies to
dictatorships like Russia, Iran, and North Korea. And China is
at the center of this web of evasion.
Sensitive American technologies are being used to advance
China's hypersonic weapons program. They are found in the spy
balloon that China sent over the continental United States last
year to collect data on our most sensitive military
installations, and they are turning up in Iranian drones and
Russian military equipment.
In short, wherever our national security interests are at
greatest risk, whether in People's Liberation Army laboratories
and military facilities of Iran and its proxies or the
battlefields of Ukraine, our adversaries are exploiting
vulnerabilities in our export control regime and using American
products to gain a strategic edge.
The current export control regime is simply too slow and
cumbersome to prevent Chinese and other companies from
accessing sensitive technologies that can be used to give our
adversaries a military edge. My legislation would give State,
Defense, and Energy greater ability to propose changes to the
Entity List, a roster of foreign companies and research
institutions and individuals who pose a serious national
security threat and who are prohibited from purchasing
sensitive U.S. products. The Departments of State, Defense, and
Energy have deep expertise in the current threat landscape, and
we should be using that expertise to make sure the Entity List
is comprehensive and accurate.
And this bill makes sure that their recommendations are
acted on, rather than languishing in red tape, by setting a 30-
day clock to address proposed changes. These reforms will make
our export control regime agile and airtight, and they will
give the United States the tools to fight back when our
adversaries try to cheat the system. I want to urge each of my
colleagues to support this measure.
And I would also like to add my strong support to Mr.
Wilson's H.R. 8566, to require reports and certain actions with
respect to the Republic of Georgia.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
And I appreciate your bill as well. It is well-thought-out
and will make our export control process much stronger. And it
did pass in your absence, but, you know----
[Laughter.]
Any further discussion?
Mr. Bera is recognized.
Mr. Bera. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I strongly support the ANS to H.R. 8566, a bipartisan bill
designed to make sure the United States remains committed to
Georgia's Euro-Atlantic aspirations, and commend Mr. Wilson, as
well as you, Chairman.
And I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion?
Mr. Davidson?
Mr. Davidson. I thank the chairman.
And I think the format, that we actually have a chance to
debate amendments like this, I wish we had a better way to do
it, but I'm strongly opposed to this. It would ruin the 75th
anniversary of NATO and people are talking about what the
future should be.
And I understand a lot of our colleagues want NATO to
expand, and every piece of the continent of Europe and as much
of Asia as they could also include into NATO, they would like
it to do. And they don't just want NATO; they want European
Union accession.
If you look at the conflict underway in Ukraine today, yes,
Ukraine is a sovereign country and, yes, they were unjustly
invaded by Putin, but the crux of the fight is about is Ukraine
going to be part of NATO or not.
And there's some concern about the European Union. Frankly,
things started devolving in Ukraine in 2013, when Poroshenko
decided that he would rather cut a trade deal with Moscow than
they would with the European Union. That led to a regime change
and lots of other policy changes in the country of Ukraine.
And I think it's great that NATO and Europe and the United
States of America have people from all over the world that want
to be part of our countries, of our systems of governance, and
frankly, want us to fight their wars for them or to fund them.
They would love to draw us into conflicts. As the Europeans
have found, as members of NATO, we've got an open checkbook.
And in order to sustain this empire, we're willing to pay for
the security of most of the world.
We seem to find scarcity when we get to the continent of
Africa. We seem to find scarcity when we look in our own
Western Hemisphere, whether it's our border, where we can't
even fund border security in our own country, or if we want to
establish what was historically the Monroe Doctrine and have a
particular emphasis on security here in the Western Hemisphere.
But when it comes to Europe's security, we've got an open
checkbook.
It's very disappointing that we're not having a more
thoughtful approach than just trying to drop, airdrop these
kinds of things in. And you can see the room; not everyone, not
everyone here.
So, I want to highlight that, look, in February 1951,
General Dwight Eisenhower, someone no one accused of being an
isolationist, he was also the first Supreme Commander of NATO.
He had the five-star general that led to victory in Europe and,
frankly, World War II, holistically. He became President of the
United States.
In 1951, he says, ``If in 10 years all American troops
stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been
returned to the United States, then this whole project''--
speaking of NATO--``has failed.''
We won the cold war. We had great success in the cold war.
And rather than celebrating that success, we decided that we're
going to crush the advantage. We wanted to expand NATO. And,
look, when the cold war was going on, we did. We had the 12
founding members 75 years ago in 1949.
And perhaps in a recognition of realism, not idealism--
Greece and Turkiye don't get along. No secret. Their cultures,
their histories, their religions, all kinds of things. They've
had conflict in the most aggressive ways possible. But they
decided to come together against a common enemy, the Soviet
Union. They would work together. That was realism.
Think how much the mission has changed. I mean, we kept the
mission focused all the way up until we won the cold war. But,
then, in 1999, despite assurances in 1990 that not one inch
eastward would NATO expand, that was James Baker, but also
Helmut Kohl, who became Chancellor of Germany--not just West
Germany, but the Unified Germany. He said NATO shouldn't
continue to expand, but it did.
In 1999, we had the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland.
Then, in 1904, Bulgaria, which certainly isn't a reformed
economy and isn't really the same kind of economy you would
think of as European Union, but got to include them. Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia. In 2009, we
added Albania and Croatia. In 2017, we added Montenegro--I
challenge anyone to pick out on a map in a moment's notice,
particularly people who aren't on the Foreign Affairs
Committee. North Macedonia in 2020, and in 2023, when Finland
and Sweden decided, yes, count us in. Because, effectively,
we've built the European defense force, and America's footing
the bill.
I couldn't be more opposed to this bad idea.
Chairman McCaul. If the gentleman yields, let me just say I
appreciate the gentleman's thoughtful debate and spirit of
debate, and these are not just perfunctory exercises. We need
to have thoughtful discussions. And certainly, as NATO is here
for the Summit, this is a really worthwhile discussion.
And also, I agree with you on the Monroe Doctrine. I really
think we're losing in our backyard to a great extent, and I
think this committee, I'd be happy to work with the gentleman
on that as well.
Is there any further discussion on the bill?
Mr. Wilson?
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Chairman Michael McCaul and Ranking Member
Greg Meeks, and thank you, Congressman Ami Bera. And I'm
grateful to be here with Congresswoman Susan Wild, and even
Dean Phillips--that we have bipartisan support for this
legislation.
I'm grateful for the inclusion of H.R. 8566, the bipartisan
MEGOBARI Act, in support of the tremendous people of the Nation
of Georgia.
And I appreciate the comments by Ambassador/Congresswoman
Ann Wagner. She's going between multiple meetings, but she was
able to keep her thought process to make it very clear that we
support the people of the Nation of Georgia.
The Georgian people have made it clear they want to live in
a free and democratic Georgia. War Criminal Putin has illegally
occupied Georgian sovereign territory since 2008. That is,
since their accession of Abkhazia. And this was done by War
Criminal Putin. It was not inspired by any other alliance. I
visited the Georgian town of Gori and I saw firsthand the
illegal Putin forces.
I have also been very impressed in visiting the capital of
Tbilisi. What wonderful people they are. And then, I have four
sons who have served overseas, and they served with Georgian
troops. And we found that they were very courageous and very
capable.
In response to the determination of the Georgian people,
the Georgian Dream enacted a Russian-style duplicitous law that
allows for arbitrary arrests and detainment and criminalization
of free speech. Sadly, the Putin foreign agent legislation as
instituted was actually initiated first to oppress the people
of Russia.
War Criminal Putin promotes this betrayal, as he seeks to
restore the failed Soviet empire to benefit the oligarchs.
Putin is trying to reestablish the failed Soviet empire. And
American people, most people recognize that.
And we see it where, first, he maintained troops in
Moldova. Then, he invaded Georgia, and then, he invaded
Ukraine, while threatening Armenia, Estonia, and all former
Soviet republics.
Americans remember World War I and World War II; foreign
wars became world wars--as we need to stand firm for peace
through strength, as has been established by Ronald Reagan.
And we know that MEGOBARI, this particular bill, means
``friend'' in Georgian, and the MEGOBARI Act is offered in the
spirit of friendship that the United States has long held
toward the Nation of Georgia.
I was inspired to actually visit joint exercises of troops
from the National Guard of the State of Georgia and the Nation
of Georgia in the State partnership program.
The Act provides for sanctions against those who undermine
Georgian sovereignty, while highlighting a positive vision for
U.S.-Georgian relations and an offer to restore a Georgian
transatlantic path. And the bill also includes provisions to
help ensure that the upcoming Georgian elections will be free
and fair.
I'm grateful to work closely with our fellow friends of
Georgia of the Helsinki Commission, particularly Senator Jeanne
Shaheen and Ranking Member Jim Risch. Support for the people of
Georgia is bipartisan and bicameral.
It is critical that this bill becomes law before the
October elections in Georgia, where the future of Georgia will
be decided, and we shouldn't let it be determined by War
Criminal Putin.
Now, more than ever, it is critical to send a strong
message to our friendship and support and ensure that every
Georgian understands that we stand with them in support of
their sovereignty. War Criminal Putin should not be allowed to
restore the failed Soviet empire for oligarchs, as he seeks to
do with the war in Ukraine, his attacks on Moldova, and his
attempts to undermine democracy in Georgia, Armenia, Estonia,
and Poland.
I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion?
[No response.]
There being no further discussion of the bill, the
committee will move to consideration of amendments.
Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
[No response.]
There being no further amendments, I move that the
committee report H.R. 8566, 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. Bera. Mr. Chairman, I 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.Res. 837, reaffirming
the ties between the United States and the Philippines.
The resolution was circulated in advance.
And the clerk shall designate the resolution.
The Clerk. ``H.Res. 837, Reaffirming the ties between the
United States and the Philippines.
Whereas, the United States''----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is
dispensed with.
The resolution is considered read and open to amendment at
any point.
[The resolution H.Res. 837 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. Is there any discussion on the resolution?
Mr. Moylan is recognized.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member,
Ranking Minority Leader.
And as Co-Chair of the U.S.-Philippines Friendship Caucus,
I urge my membership here, our committee, to vote to pass
Resolution 837, expressing our support for our friends in the
Philippines.
Now, this resolution reaffirms the 1951 U.S.-Philippines
Mutual Defense Treaty that provides a strong foundation for our
robust security partnership and Pacific security at large.
With the tensions in the South China Sea rising every day,
reiterating the United States' unwavering commitment to the
Philippines, should an armed attack be launched against the
Filipino assets, is important. As Philippines President Marcos
has repeated frequently, U.S. commitment to this treaty and
support for Filipino security is fundamental to keeping the
Indo-Pacific free and stable.
In the Indo-Pacific, the People's Republic of China
continues to expand its presence and threat campaign. On July
3d, the Chinese Coast Guard anchored two 541-foot vessels just
80 miles away from Palawan, a Filipino island. This
intimidation method and other examples of escalating neighbor
presence represents a complete disregard for international law
and the sovereignty of the Philippines. Now more than ever,
Filipinos within the United States and abroad are in dire need
of our support.
For Guam, this issue is personal. In the areas of culture,
commerce, and family, Guam is intertwined with the Philippines.
In the gravest of scenarios, a PRC attack on any country within
the first island chain, like the Philippines, will likely yield
an attack on Guam.
As a representative and as a citizen of somewhere within
China's maritime reach, I hope you, my colleagues, all support
and recommit to our ally and vote in favor of this resolution.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Moylan. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. May I extend just for
a little bit, please?
Chairman McCaul. Yes.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is kind of in line--not really on my resolution--but
in line with the freedom in the Indo-Pacific area. Because
today we're celebrating the 80th celebration of our Guam
liberation date. And I would just like to invite you and my
members and my colleagues here to come on down and have a
little celebration at Nancy Pelosi's conference room in the
Cannon Building in celebration of our freedom, for the United
States, what it has done for Guam and the liberation of Guam--
80 years.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. I would be delighted to attend if we're
finished with this markup.
And I just want to congratulate the gentleman on his first
piece of legislation, and it's a very worthy one in support of
the Philippines. And Guam is certainly a beautiful island. I've
been there before.
Any further discussion?
Mr. Bera is recognized.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I support this timely measure by Delegate Moylan and
Representative Bobby Scott because the U.S.-Philippines
alliance is critical to the U.S. interests and a free and open
Indo-Pacific region.
The Philippines holds a special place in the heart of the
United States as an ally for over seven decades. There's no
more urgent moment to reinforce the bonds between our nations.
Tensions are escalating in the South China Sea with the PRC
intensifying its interference with Philippine supply and
fishing vessels, including dangerous maneuvers and the shooting
of lasers and water cannons.
Beijing's flagrant disregard for international rules, even
those it has long benefited from, is evident in its unlawful
maritime claims across the West Philippine Sea and the broader
South China Sea. These actions directly threaten the
sovereignty of the Philippines as a nation and the prosperity
of its people.
Just last month, we saw the PRC continue to escalate their
provocative and irresponsible actions when a Chinese Coast
Guard vessel with servicemen wielding machetes and other
weapons collided with a Philippine supply boat and seized their
firearms, injuring one Filipino soldier.
In the face of these escalatory actions, the U.S.
commitment to the Philippines through our mutual defense treaty
is unwavering. Such provocations only escalate an already
volatile situation. And I call on my colleagues to join me in
condemning the PRC's dangerous actions that threaten
Philippines vessels in the South China Sea.
It is also critical that we continue to expand defense
cooperation, conducting more joint patrols with the Philippines
in the South China Sea and coordinating with our partners and
allies in the region to ensure freedom of navigation and
overflight.
That's why I applaud the Biden administration for hosting
the first-ever U.S.-Japan-Philippines Trilateral Summit in
April of this year to bolster trilateral cooperation toward our
shared commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific. As President
Biden reaffirmed, our alliance with the Philippines remains
ironclad.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. And again, it's
a good bill.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Any further discussion?
[No response.]
There being no further discussion of the resolution--oh,
Ms. Wild is recognized.
Ms. Wild. No, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman McCaul. OK. The committee will move to
consideration of amendments.
Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
Ms. Wild?
Ms. Wild. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall report--distribute the
amendment.
The clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.Res. 837 offered by Ms. Wild of
Pennsylvania.
Page 3, line 11, strike `and' ''----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
[The Amendment offered by Ms. Wild follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in support of my amendment to House Resolution 837.
And I hope Mr. Moylan's invitation is open to the whole
committee. If so, I accept.
I thank the majority for working with my office on the
amendment language and coming to an agreement.
While I recognize this resolution's efforts to reaffirm the
United States' commitment to meeting our treaty obligations and
countering the aggressive actions of the PRC in the region, I
think it is equally critical to recognize the need for the
Philippine government to uphold democratic institutions, human
rights, and the rule of law.
Since I began serving in Congress, I have worked to
fundamentally change our policy toward the Philippines. As the
sponsor of the Philippine Human Rights Act, I have met with
labor organizers facing the constant threat of arbitrary
detention and horrific campaigns of incitement and threats
known as ``red tagging,'' and even the prospect of
extrajudicial killing at the hands of State security forces or
paramilitary organizations operating with impunity--all because
they are working to mobilize their fellow workers to exercise
their fundamental right to organize and collectively bargain.
The threats facing the labor movement extend to
journalists, human rights defenders, critics of the government,
faith and religious leaders, and civil society activists. Under
the cover of the so-called ``War on Drugs,'' initiated by
former President Duterte, and continued by the current Marcos
administration, the Philippine government has overseen a
relentless campaign to intimidate the labor movement, stifle
political opposition, and suppress dissent.
We cannot remain silent. I submit this amendment in the
wake of the tens of thousands of extrajudicial killings
committed since the beginning of the Duterte presidency--in the
name of all the courageous labor organizers, journalists,
dissidents, members of clergy, and others who put their lives
on the line in defense of their fellow citizens, and in the
memory of all those labor organizers, dissidents, and others
whose killings have gone without any degree of justice or
accountability.
We should not and do not need to choose between addressing
threats to our collective security and standing up for
fundamental principles. In fact, we cannot have a genuinely
effective, long-term strategy for the defense of one that
excludes the other.
I urge my colleagues: stand with the people of the
Philippines. Stand up for fundamental rights and dignity, and
join me in adopting this amendment and continuing the work of
shaping a policy toward the Philippines that puts human rights
and human dignity first.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
Any other members see recognition?
Mr. Moylan?
Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Regarding the Wild amendment, with PRC harassment
operations on the rise, Ms. Wild's amendment offers a
meaningful addition to this resolution--to commit to the
defense of our Indo-Pacific partners as a commitment to the
proliferation of fundamental democratic principles. I'd like to
support Ms. Wild's amendment, as it reinforces the idea that a
secure Pacific is one that respects the rule of law and human
rights.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any other members seek recognition?
Mr. Bera?
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I support this amendment.
In their joint statement last year, President Biden and
President Marcos expressed a need for our nations to ensure
respect for human rights and the rule of law. I believe that
our alliance will be stronger if our democracies are stronger
and based on the bond of shared values.
So, I support this amendment and yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion?
[No response.]
There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
on the amendment offered by Representative Wild, No. 42.
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 is agreed to.
Are there any further amendments?
Mr. Bera. Mr. Chairman, I have Amendment 37 at the desk.
Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
And the clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.Res. 837 offered by Mr. Bera of
California.
In the ninth clause of the preamble, strike `and' at the
end.
In the tenth clause of the preamble''----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
[The Amendment offered by Mr. Bera follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll keep it short.
This is a great bill that Representatives Moylan and Scott
have offered. My amendment just updates the underlying
resolution on events that have occurred since its introduction
and adds a clause calling on the People's Republic of China to
cease its aggressive and dangerous actions against Philippine
vessels in the South China Sea.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any other members seek recognition?
Mr. Moylan?
Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank Mr. Bera for offering his amendment
to the resolution, and I wholeheartedly support his amendment,
as it addresses a critical issue. The PRC's vessels have
increased their operations near the Philippine shores and
continue to put servicemembers and civilians at risk with their
aggressive maritime tactics.
The additional inclusion of the U.S., Philippine, and
Japanese trilateral cooperation also highlights an important
area of the Indo-Pacific unity that should be present in this
resolution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any other member seek recognition?
[No response.]
There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
on the amendment offered by Representative Bera, No. 37.
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 is agreed to.
Are there any further amendments?
Mr. Davidson is recognized.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have an amendment at the desk, No. 161.
Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
And the clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.Res. 837 offered by Mr.
Davidson of Ohio.
Page 3, line 11, strike `and' at the end.
Page 3, line 16, strike''----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
[The Amendment offered by Mr. Davidson follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Chairman.
And I want to thank you, Mr. Moylan. This is a great
resolution. I think it's very thoughtful and incredibly
timely--right on the tip of the spear in terms of where we
should be focused right now.
I just have this offered in the spirit of alignment with,
frankly, our Constitution. And, look, as principled as it is to
say that no foreign agreement should trump the requirements of
the U.S. Constitution, it's also pragmatic.
You know, if you look at NATO, people will commonly cite
Article 5, which is kind of the mutual defense clause where we
come to the aid; if one country is attacked, we consider it an
attack on all of us. But they tend to neglect Article 11, which
says, consistent with the constitutional processes of each
member country. And that's just realism. That's the reality of
what would happen in our own country, or at least what should
through the courts and our laws.
And I think we found a bipartisan consensus, and I hope,
Mr. Moylan, you can support it as well. It's intended to
strengthen it and make it fully executable, should the need
arise.
And with that, I would encourage everyone to support the
amendment and the overall bill, as amended.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any other members seek recognition?
[No response.]
Let me say I support this amendment as well.
And there being no further discussion, the question now
occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Davidson, No.
161.
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 is agreed to.
Are there any further amendments?
[No response.]
There being no further amendments, I move that the
committee report H.Res. 837, 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.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
Staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming
changes.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.Res. 554, affirming the
nature and importance of the support of the United States for
the religious and ethnic minority survivors of genocide in
Iraq.
The resolution was circulated in advance.
And the clerk shall designate the resolution.
The Clerk. ``H.Res. 554, Affirming the nature and
importance of the support of the United States for the
religious and ethnic minority survivors of genocide in Iraq.''
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is
dispensed with.
The resolution is considered read and open to amendment at
any point.
[The resolution H.Res. 554 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the James 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.
[The amendment offered by Mr. James follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. Is there any discussion of the resolution?
Mr. James is recognized.
Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to recognize, of course, how this got here.
Congresswoman Slotkin wrote this resolution and I got it to a
vote, as a subcommittee chair on HFAC.
This is a sterling example of bipartisan action on what
Michiganders agree is a nonpartisan issue, standing by the
Chaldean people at home and abroad. This resolution expresses
the support of the U.S. House of Representatives for the
restoration of the rights and dignities given to religious and
ethnic minority communities in Iraq. That includes the
restoration of religious and cultural sites, such as churches
and community buildings.
Our hope is that this message coming from this markup today
reaches the highest levels within the Iraqi government in
Baghdad, in knowing that the United States stands by the
Chaldean community. The Iraqi constitution enshrines equal and
inclusive representation for religious and ethnic minority
groups in Iraq. Untrustworthy actors, many aligned with Iran,
are using these rights to undermine the Christian minority
community today.
In Michigan's 10th congressional District, religious
liberties are not only deeply personal to our vibrant Chaldean
community, but also to many of our fellow Catholic and
Christian brothers and sisters that see this right as an
essential cornerstone of a free and prosperous society.
This resolution is a long time coming. And I really, really
appreciate you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Meeks, for
helping me bring this forward. It means a great deal to the
Chaldean Iraqi Christians throughout the State of Michigan and
across the country, and, in particular, in Iraq, who are
fighting for and advocating for these rights each and every
single day.
Mr. Chairman, I applaud your leadership.
Thank you. I yield.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Let me say I strongly support this resolution and I
appreciate the gentleman bringing it forward.
Is there any further discussion on the resolution?
Mr. Bera is recognized.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am proud to support this resolution from Representative
Slotkin, which rightfully and critically brings attention to
the contributions of and suffering endured by religious and
ethnic minority groups in Iraq.
And with that, you know, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further discussion on the resolution.
[No response.]
There being no further discussion on the resolution, the
committee will move to consideration of amendments.
Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
[No response.]
There being no amendments, I now move that the committee
report H.Res. 554, 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.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table.
Staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming
changes.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.Res. 1328, recognizing
the actions of the Rapid Support Forces and allied militias in
the Darfur region of Sudan against non-Arab ethnic communities
as acts of genocide.
The resolution was circulated in advance.
And the clerk shall designate the resolution.
The Clerk. ``H.Res. 1328, Recognizing the actions of the
Rapid Support Forces and allied militias in the Darfur region
of the Sudan against non-Arab ethnic''----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is
dispensed with.
The resolution is considered read and open to amendment at
any point.
[The resolution H.Res. 1328 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. Is there any discussion on the resolution?
Mr. James is recognized.
Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, I have spoken
before the full committee time and time again to bring
attention to the crises ongoing on the African continent.
Today, Sudan is the largest humanitarian crisis in the world.
With close to 9 million people internally displaced, 25 million
people are experiencing acute food insecurity, with over
700,000 people on the verge of famine, including regions of
Darfur.
While the official death toll is approximately 15,000 since
the civil war began in April 2023, most estimate that the
actual figure is closer to 150,000 people dead. Refugees are
scattered around the region and contributing to immigration
crises all over the world, as civilians flee escalating
violence by the warring parties, the Rapid Support Forces, RSF,
and the Sudanese Armed Forces, SAF.
As the war continues to unfold, an abundance of evidence
points to genocide being committed by the RSF against the
Masalit, and likely against other non-Arab ethnic communities,
black communities as well. In West Darfur, the RSF has
systematically targeted the Masalit ethnic group. From April to
June 2023, up to 15,000 people were killed in a series of
coordinated attacks. Survivors reported being targeted
explicitly because they were Masalit.
According to a report compiled by the Raoul Wallenberg
Center for Human Rights, the RSF have attacked, burned, and
destroyed homes, entire villages, IDP camps, and shelters that
primarily hosted Masalit people. Shortly after he publicly
decried the ongoing genocide, calling for international
intervention to protect the remaining population, the Governor
of West Darfur was executed by the RSF.
My resolution will formally declare the atrocities
committed by the Rapid Support Forces and allied militia as
acts of genocide. For too long, the world has stood by
complicit as we watch history repeat itself, as external
actors, including the UAE, Russia, and Iran, fuel this fight
without repercussion.
In 2003, the government of Sudan and its proxies, Janjaweed
militia, explicitly targeted the non-Arab, black Fur Zaghawa
and Masalit ethnic communities through mass killings, forced
displacement, razing the villages and cropland, widespread
rape, aerial bombings of civilians, and blocking of
humanitarian assistance. Today, RSF, formed out of elements of
Janjaweed militia, are using the exact same playbook.
In 2004, it was Congress who took the lead to bring
attention to these atrocities with the passage of House
Concurrent Resolution 467 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 133
in the 108th Congress, declaring the atrocities occurring in
Darfur as a genocide.
Then, President George W. Bush's administration followed by
declaring genocide in Darfur in September 2004. Despite
hundreds of thousands of U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the Bush administration did not ignore the plight
of the Sudanese people.
President Biden, what's your excuse? Today, Ukraine gets
billions and Gaza gets a pier, but because the Sudanese are
neither white, nor have a vital diaspora, which represents a
key voting block for the President, the Sudanese people--the
black Sudanese peopleget crickets.
Do black lives matter, Mr. President? Or do you only care
about their votes in election years? Act now and work with
Congress to hold every actor in this genocide accountable for
their atrocities against black Africans.
For now, Congress will take the lead again. First, the
Senate introduced a bipartisan resolution, and today, we're
considering H.Res. 1328, the bipartisan House version. I've
spoken to the State Department and our intelligence resources.
The evidence is clear, the RSF's actions unequivocally amount
to genocide and must be declared as such.
I also call on the SAF, the RSF, and their backers to
immediately cease violence and bring to end this devastating
war, or you will be held accountable. The Sudanese people
cannot afford a delay, as lives hang in the balance today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Let me say, I thank you for bringing this resolution. I
strongly support.
It has been over a year since fighting first broke out in
Khartoum and through Sudan. The war in Sudan has created a
heartbreaking humanitarian crisis. Humanitarian workers have
been killed, and more than 7 million people have been
displaced, including 3 million children.
There are reports of widespread rape and sexual violence,
as well as war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and ethnic
cleansing.
Much, if not all, has been at the hands of the Rapid
Support Forces, also known as the Janjaweed, and its allied
militias targeting the non-Arab Sudanese.
This past April, at the 1-year anniversary of the conflict,
Ranking Member Meeks and I, along with Senate Foreign Relations
Committee Chairman Cardin and Ranking Member Risch, sent a
letter to the Administration requesting that they examine the
RSF actions and if they are guilty of gross violations of
internationally recognized human rights. Since we sent that
letter, the violence has only increased.
We want the world to know that the U.S. Congress stands
together in our outrage of the genocidal actions by both the
Janjaweed as well as their enablers. And we must also send the
clear message that the Congress condemns the Sudanese Armed
Forces who are guilty of acts of war and other atrocities. The
United States must use all of its diplomatic might to pressure
both sides to cease this war, and hand over power to the people
of Sudan.
As millions face violence, famine, and ethnic targeting in
Darfur region in Sudan, it is time this body speaks with a
unified voice that genocide and ethnic cleansing will not be
tolerated.
And with that, I yield. And I recognize Mr. Bera.
Mr. Bera. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I support this resolution because we must call greater
attention to Sudan, which is experiencing ongoing violence and
atrocities as the worlds largest humanitarian crisis.
Let me emphasize that again: the worlds largest
humanitarian crisis.
It is appalling that so many millions of people are
suffering in Sudan without a greater outcry from around the
world. So, I applaud this bipartisan resolution and
wholeheartedly support it.
I yield back.
Mr. James [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further discussion?
There being no further discussion of the resolution, the
committee will move to consideration of amendments.
Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
There being no further amendments, I move that the
committee report H.Res. 1328, as amendment to House--amended to
the House, with a favorable recommendation.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify by saying no.
None being heard, in the opinion of the chair, the ayes
have it and the motion is agreed to.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table. And staff is authorized to make any technical and
conforming changes.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up House Joint Resolution
164 providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of
title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the
Department of Commerce relating to Revision of Firearms License
Requirements.
[The Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 164 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. James. The joint resolution was circulated in advance.
The clerk shall designate the joint resolution.
The Clerk. H.J.Res. 164, Providing congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of
the rule submitted by the Department of Commerce relating to
the Revision----
Mr. James. Without objection, the first reading is
dispensed with. And the joint resolution is considered read and
open to amendment at any point.
Is there any discussion of the joint resolution?
The gentleman from California is now recognized.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I strongly oppose H.J.Res. 164.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. James. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Green. Yes.
Mr. James. Mr. Green is acknowledged for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
And I would like to submit into the record this letter from
the Firearm Industry Association from their President Lawrence
Keane.
So ordered?
Mr. James. Without objection.
[The information referred to was not submitted]
Mr. Green. On October 27th, 2023, without any warning,
clarification, or justification, the Department of Commerces
Bureau of Industry and Security unilaterally paused the
issuance of renewal--and renewal of numerous export licenses
for firearms, ammunition, and related materials. BIS officials
assured this pause would only last 90 days.
That was a lie.
American businesses were left completely in the dark for
over 200 days, unable to fulfill contracts and forced to lay
off employees.
I grilled Under Secretary Alan Estevez about this
irresponsible pause when he came before this committee, and all
he did was deflect and, again, give false testimony. BISs
cavalier decision to put these business owners at risk of
losing everything they have worked to build is disgraceful.
Following the pause, BIS issued an interim final rule that
is having a devastating effect for American firearms and
ammunition manufacturers and exporters. Among other problematic
provisions, this IFR makes gun export licenses only valid for 1
year instead of four.
As a result of this rule, backlogs for licenses will
skyrocket, forcing BIS to review 16,600 applications a year,
more than double its current case load. These 16,600
applications will now be reviewed on a case-by-case basis,
leaving firearms exporters at the mercy of anti-gun
bureaucrats.
And lets not forget BISs decision to revoke the licenses of
businesses because they export to one of the now banned 36
countries. This punitive and predatory actions against these
law-abiding business shows just how the Biden administration is
willing to go to enact its anti-gun agenda.
This new rule even targets hunters and competitive marksmen
traveling overseas by restricting what firearms they can take
and where they can travel. While BIS claims that these changes
will not significantly impact the industry, a comprehensive
economic analysis performed by the National Shooting Sports
Foundation estimates that this IFR will cost the industry $500
million per year, a devastating effect.
BIS claims that this IFR is necessary to stop international
gun crimes, but has no evidence to back this claim up. In fact,
a 2022 Government Accounting Office report concludes the
opposite.
According to the GAO, existing data on international gun
crimes was insufficient to warrant any permanent changes. In
fact, the GAO repeatedly notes that the firearms used in
international gun crimes are overwhelmingly sourced through
illegal markets working across porous borders and through
theft.
As the Biden Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and
Explosives has admitted, less than 1 percent of firearms
lawfully exported from the U.S. were associated with an
international gun crime. In other words, Biden is barking up
the wrong tree.
It is clear that as long as there is a booming black market
for guns, restricting the legal sale of firearms wont stop
international gun crimes, but it will keep law-abiding citizens
being able to protect themselves against criminals. It will
also cede control of this market to bad actors, including
countries like Russia and China. And it will put Americans who
are employed in this industry out of work.
At every step of this process BIS has left American
exporters out to dry. As Adam Naylor, President of Outdoorsman
Precision Manufacturing in Celina, Tennessee, said, Our
business was forced to close last month, with over a million
dollars in open orders that were either put on hold or
completely canceled, as our OEM customer sales declined during
the BIS pause.
He went on to say that this pause, and now IFR, has
resulted in eight jobs lost in his distressed, tiny community,
600,000 in hard cash investments, one million of unsecured
loans unable to be repaid, and 1.5 million of capital equipment
surrendered to the banks. This is just one story out of
thousands.
The congressional mandate for the Department of Commerce is
simple: foster, promote, and develop the foreign and domestic
commerce, the mining, manufacturing and fishery industry of the
United States. In other words, the department must facilitate
commerce not hinder it.
Not only is this IFR unnecessary, it is devastating to the
industry, and will only make international gun crimes worse.
With over 90 co-sponsors, my congressional Review Act
resolution of disapproval would overturn this disastrous IFR
and put American firearms exporters first. I strongly urge my
colleagues on the committee to vote in favor of this
resolution.
And I yield my time.
Mr. James. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Amo?
Mr. Amo has been acknowledged for 5 minutes.
Mr. Amo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In our committee we often talk about exporting American
values and defending American interests abroad. And, yet, today
we are considering a joint resolution that does just the exact
opposite. It undermines our foreign policy interests and
threatens our national security.
Should it become law, the U.S. would once again export our
most uniquely American problem: school shootings. This is not
an exaggeration by any means. I am not being an alarmist. In
fact, it has already happened.
In October 2022, a gun, legally exported out of the United
States, was used in a mass shooting at a preschool, a preschool
in Thailand. Thirty-six people lost their lives, including more
than 20 children.
How does this not infuriate every member of this committee?
Federal law enforcement concluded that during the previous
Administration nearly 11 percent of guns recovered at
international crime scenes were lawfully exported from the
United States. Again, lawfully.
Thankfully, the Department of Commerce took steps to
correct this by thwarting the diversion and misuse of exported
guns. But today our Republican colleagues are trying to undo
this lifesaving progress. You are saying yes to once again
spreading the cancer of American gun violence all across the
world.
Make no mistake, this joint resolution would fuel crime,
regional instability, and political violence abroad. It would
throw gasoline on the fires of violence and turmoil that force
millions to flee their homes and seek a better life in the
United States.
To my Republican colleagues, you cant honestly claim that
this rule infringes on the Second Amendment. This rule doesnt
even concern gun possession in the United States. It is about
exporting guns abroad.
Exporting guns without sufficient checks and guardrails
will only make us, us, our allies around the world, all of
those in the global community less safe.
So, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this
dangerous legislation. We must act.
I yield back.
Mr. James. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Davidson is acknowledged for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davidson. I thank the chairman.
Wow. I cant believe what I just heard from my colleague on
the other side of the aisle. I applaud Mr. Greens resolution. I
think it should be common sense.
The status quo was that we export our weapons. And the
problem is that the Administration has decided, well, if I cant
do gun control in America because the Constitution is in the
way, let me do gun control everywhere else I can.
What a shame.
Mr. Green highlighted the problems this is causing for
hardworking Americans all over the economy, people that have
put their capital to risk in our economy, and you talk about
what is distinctly American? The right to life is critical, and
because of that the right to protect your life is there. And we
do it with firearms in our country.
And people around the world want to be able to do it.
When did the Biden Administration implement this rule?
Right after 10/7 when Hamas attacked Israel and the surge for
demand for firearms, they didnt just attack, it was a massacre:
people asleep in their homes, young people at a concert, where
in America some people would be armed; right to keep and bear
arms.
And they have these protections in other places in the
world, and they want the firearms to be able to protect
themselves. They ought to be able to buy them if theyre
consistent with the law, with the laws of their country. And we
make them here in abundance here in America and we make them
very good. They are well-crafted, high quality weapons. They
work when you need them to. They save lives in the right hands.
And that is the business of the countries that let them be
imported. Our country ought to not get in the way of the
export. Everyone ought to get behind this amendment. I hope it
is bipartisan.
What a shame what this Biden administration is doing to the
people off Israel and others around the world that just want to
be safe.
I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. I thank the gentleman.
And I just want to say, you know, Bidens administration,
its ATF is the one that says this is not a legal export
problem, it is the smuggling of guns that is causing this
illegally. And, in fact, the biggest source of the diversion of
firearms to the black market are government and military
stockpiles. This according to the ATF under Biden.
The guns are going to get there. The bad guys are going to
find another way. Our State Department really regulates these
exports very heavily. Why not have that, instead of Russia and
China supplying these guys? Why empower people who are
nefarious with more revenue from the sale of guns that we could
sell, created from the United States? It is a great example of
flawed Democrat thinking.
They are fine with an open border that puts billions of
dollars into the hands of drug cartels smuggling humans through
the area. Apparently they are OK letting other manufacturers
export nefariously. I say we put them out of business.
Green New Deal, all this stuff about, oh, well, we cant. We
are going to shut down the U.S. oil and gas industry. Oh, wait
a minute, we, we actually are 47 percent cleaner than all the
other places across the planet. Why dont we ramp ours up and
put them out of business if we really cared about the climate?
This is just ridiculously flawed thinking. We have got to
pass this bill. And that will create a safer world.
I yield.
Mr. James. The gentleman yields.
Is there any further discussion?
There being no further discussion of the joint resolution,
the committee will move to consideration of amendments.
Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
There being no amendments, I move that the committee report
H.J.Res. 164 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. Amo. I request a recorded vote.
Mr. James. A roll call vote has been requested.
Pursuant to the chairs previous announcement, this vote
will be postponed.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 1425, the No WHO
Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act.
[The Bill H.R. 1425 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. James. The bill was circulated in advance.
The clerk shall designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 1425, to require any convention agreement,
or other international instrument on pandemic prevention,
preparedness, and response reached by the World Health Assembly
to be subject to Senate ratification.
Mr. James. Without objection, the first reading is
dispensed with. And the bill is considered read and open to
amendment at any point.
Is there any discussion on the bill?
The gentleman from Tennessee is recognize--Ohio. I try not
to say that four-letter word in public. Is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Davidson.
Mr. Davidson. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. And, of
course, we have friendly rivalries on the football field, but
we love our neighbors who share Lake Erie so closely, and so
much else, you know, every other day, except when Ohio State is
supposed to beat Michigan. Supposed to beat.
Look, this is an important bill. Mr. Tiffany isnt on the
committee of jurisdiction. I am carrying this bill for Tom
Tiffany of Wisconsin. It is a thoughtful bill. It does what we
are supposed to do in this branch.
I get that a lot of this functions almost like a
parliamentary system. But we dont have a parliament where
everything is supposed to be based on party. So, because the
Administration wants something, the party in power lines up
behind them. Even if, even if there are other problems there,
which we all know there are.
Article 1 of the Constitution gives us jurisdiction on
treaties. And, you know, when one Administration enters into an
agreement that intends to bind that Administration, that is one
thing. But when you enter into an agreement that is supposed to
bind future policy and future Administrations there is a
process for that, it is called a treaty.
And that is what this bill does. It says that if you intend
this to be something that is actually binding on the United
States of America, it would require that any convention, or
agreement, or other international instrument on pandemic
prevention, preparedness, and response reached by the World
Health Assembly that it be subject to Senate ratification. That
is what our Constitution says. That is the oath we swore to
defend.
I urge all of our colleagues to support this common sense
piece of legislation authored by Mr. Tiffany and co-sponsored
by many of our colleagues.
And I yield back.
Mr. James. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Sherman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sherman. I rise in opposition to this bill and will
address some remarks that majority staff has put together and
that I endorse.
This bill would undermine an historic opportunity to reach
a pandemic accord agreement among the 124 World Health
Organization member states, which I should add should be 195,
including Taiwan.
While Senate ratification followed by a Presidential
signature is the formal process by which treaties are ratified
under the U.S. Constitution, a U.S. president has the authority
of acceding to an international or multilateral agreement
through executive action alone, without the advice or consent
of the Senate. If in fact, I might want to point out that the
vast majority of U.S. international agreements are approved by
an executive action rather than formal Senate approval.
This measure is a naked attempt to hamper our multilateral
diplomatic efforts to reach a pandemic accord and agreement
that builds on the lessons that we learned from the COVID-19
pandemic, a process that has already faced an avalanche of mis
and disinformation.
In May, the entire Republican Senate Caucus voiced their
opposition to U.S. negotiations to reach a pandemic accord
agreement, citing unfounded claims that the agreement would
harm U.S. sovereignty. To be clear, the draft pandemic
agreement advances global health security without impacting
U.S. national sovereignty.
The draft agreement explicitly states that it does not give
the WHO any power to dictate any specific policy to member
nations, and that member states may implement policies
according to their sovereign laws.
Mr. Meeks has told me that he was proud to lead a letter to
the U.S. Mission in Geneva with a number of our colleagues
expressing strong support for the World Health Organization
Intergovernmental Negotiating Bodies, that is the INBs efforts
to reach a pandemic accord. We are standing on the precipice of
history to learn from the botched global response to COVID-19.
And we need to do better.
I should point out that much of the worlds response to
COVID-19 was as well thought through as you could expect, given
that this was a completely new pathogen. And it is hard for a
society to know how to respond to something that is so
threatening and so unprecedented.
As Mr. Meeks has said, to ensure the world is better
prepared to respond to future health emergencies we must
institute a strong global framework that secures our national
sovereignty and strengthens national health security.
The draft pandemic accord agreement currently being
negotiated helps coordinate a global response to public health
threats, strengthens the global health workforce, improves
distribution of medical countermeasures, and provides funding
for WHO members to improve response capacity.
The draft agreement also will enhance transparency and
information sharing among WHO members, which is critical to
better understanding of emerging pathogens that have pandemic
potential.
The next pandemic is not a matter of if, but when. We must
get the pandemic accord done, as it could prove essential for
saving American lives.
For these reasons I oppose the measure.
And I yield back.
Mr. James. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Davidson is acknowledged.
Mr. Davidson. I thank the chairman.
Our colleagues dont agree uniformly. I hope most of them
agree. Mr. Sherman clearly doesnt.
But this pandemic, his charge is that the pandemic
agreement doesnt infringe U.S. sovereignty. But the drafted
legislation of the pandemic agreement calls for common but
differentiated responsibilities as it pertains to prevention,
preparedness, and response.
Ambassador Pamela Hamamato released a statement regarding
this issue stating, We do not support common but differentiated
responsibilities and capabilities. This concept is not
appropriate in the context of pandemic PPR.
This language directly counters United States sovereignty
and should be reviewed and debated before the Senate before it
is agreed to by the United States of America.
We have seen problems where we have language like this that
really does matter in the Paris Climate Accord, as an example,
where one Administration wants to force it on us and the other
is, like, no, we are not going to sign up for that. We are not
going to pay extra for everyone else to comply with things. We,
we want to weigh in.
That is why it is really important for this body to come
together and say, what do we actually agree to? We dont agree
to this. We clearly dont. And the Biden administration doesnt
care.
In fact, on our other issues we are trying to Trump proof
NATO now, Trump proof the policies in Ukraine. Those kinds of
things need to go through the treaty process.
The charge is that the pandemic agreement with the World
Health Organization is a good thing and it would help global,
the world, and vulnerable countries. Reality is the pandemic
agreement utilizes the term developing countries, which is what
the Peoples Republic of China is considered to be by the United
Nations and the World Health Organization.
Are you kidding me? The second largest economy in the world
with maybe the second most lethal military in the world, the
labs where the Wuhan virus are suspected to have been created.
This agreement would give preferential status to China over the
United States. This agreement and the United Nations must be
clear and more concise as to what exactly constitutes a
developing country. And it clearly cant include China.
And the charge is that the pandemic agreement is critical
to our national security. But the reality is this agreement
would give preferential status to China due to its status as a
developing country. Recognize, it says, you know, recognizing
that the protection of intellectual property rights is
important for the development of new medical products, and
recalling that intellectual property rights do not and should
not prevent members states from taking measures to protect
public health, and further recognizing the terms about the
effects of intellectual property rights on pieces--look, we are
going to cede property rights.
And in doing so we would be handing over Americas
intellectual property, what we are bound to protect, to
countries that our Congress have collectively decided are
threats to our national security.
This provision alone poses a grave threat to national
security and would have a chilling effect on U.S. innovation
and, frankly, participation with the agreement. The pandemic
agreement is supposed to not increase costs to taxpayers. But
the reality is, in this agreement developed countries like the
United States would be obligated to foot the bill in the event
of a pandemic.
Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, and 19 all have language reiterating
this fact. It is not the responsibility of United States
taxpayers to pay for any agreement that does not represent
their interests. It would have to go through a constitutional
process, which is exactly what this agreement should go
through, ratification by the Senate.
This is why it is vital that we allow the agreement to be
considered in the Senate and to provide them with
representation as the Constitution says.
Additionally, the United States has already provided $250
million to the World Banks Pandemic Fund in 2023 alone, and
$200 million provided in 2022. The Administration has signaled
further spending in the hundreds of million dollars in the
coming years. We shall see. I am not sure we can trust the
Administration with those dollars. That is why we have a
separate appropriations process.
Additionally, you know, the World Health Organization broke
the trust of the American people with how they handled COVID-
19. So, lets have a proper review of it in the U.S. Senate,
with a treaty process, with debate, as provided by our
Constitution.
And I yield back.
Mr. James. The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further discussion?
There being no further discussion on this bill, the
committee will move to consideration of amendments.
Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
There being no amendments, I move that the committee report
H.R. 1425 to the House with a favorable recommendation.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chair, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Chairman McCaul. The yeas and nays have been requested. A
roll call vote has been requested.
Pursuant to the chairs previous announcement, this vote
will be postponed.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 7025, the United
States Commission on International Religious Freedom.
[The Bill H.R. 7025 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. James. The bill was circulated in advance.
The clerk shall designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 7025, to extend and authorize annual
appropriations for the United States Commission on
International Religious Freedom through Fiscal Year 2026.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America and the Congress----
Mr. James. Without objection, the first reading is
dispensed with. And the bill is considered read and open to
amendment at any point.
Is there any discussion on the bill?
Ah, yes, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. James. Need to catch your breath another couple
seconds?
Mr. Smith. I am OK. Thank you.
Mr. James. All right. I will stand down.
Mr. Smith, the gentleman from New Jersey, is acknowledged
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank Chairman McCaul, and certainly you, and
the ranking member for arranging to have H.R. 7025 considered
today.
It is a bill that reauthorizes the United States Commission
on International Religious Freedom, or the acronym is USCIRF,
for an additional 2 years, through September 30th, 2026.
Congress, for the record, has regularly authorized the USCIRF
through clean 2-year reauthorizations.
The bill contains the previous--continues that practice.
Just a little brief background.
USCIRF was first enacted in 1998 as part of the
International Religious Freedom Act. It was Frank Wolfs
landmark legislation that created our whole-of-government
effort to combat religious persecution and to promote religious
freedom. I chaired all the hearings right here or in 2200.
It was controversial at the time, but it is absolutely not
controversial anymore. That is both the Commission as well as
the Religious Freedom Office which is embedded in the U.S.
Department of State.
The beauty of USCIRF is that it is a good check and balance
with the State Department. It provides us, the U.S. Congress,
House and Senate, and by extension the American people, amazing
analysis of what is going on in country after country. We make
recommendations for what we call countries of particular
concern, those who have very poor practice and policies with
regards to religious freedom.
And very often they do carry the day because they document
everything, they hold their own hearings, and they put out this
tremendous resource guide every year. And, of course, they do
supplementation to it based on need.
Over 100 NGO's, I am just reminded, have endorsed this who
are involved in the push for religious freedom all over the
world.
And the way the commissioners get their jobs, the
leadership of the House and Senate, and the President get to
pick the commissioners. So, there is a broad array of opinions.
And we really do get that diversity of opinion, really makes
them even sharper, and more credible when they assert against
whatever the Administration is, that something is not being
done as adequately or as effectively as it could be.
The members of the commission have included members of
every faith, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus. They have all
been part of this. And the bottom line is they pursue religious
freedom and religious tolerance.
So, Anna Eshoo is our prime co-sponsor. Anna and I have
worked on religious freedom issues, Mr. Chairman, for years, on
the Middle East, everywhere. And I am very proud to have her as
the chief Democratic sponsor.
Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your passionate
advocacy. I support this bill.
And is there any further discussion?
Mr. Sherman. I rise in support.
Mr. James. Mr. Sherman rises in support.
Would you like to speak for 5 minutes, sir?
Mr. Sherman. I would in indeed.
Mr. James. Go for it. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Sherman. I support this measure reauthorizing the
United States Commission in International Religious Freedom, or
USCIRF. I thank Mr. Smith and Ms. Eshoo for their leadership in
supporting religious freedom around the world.
The reauthorization of USCIRF comes amidst various
conflicts around the world in which millions of people are
suffering from egregious human rights violations, including the
denial, repression, and persecution of individuals based on
religious views.
There has been a concerning trend of religious sites being
targeted during armed conflicts, including in the recent civil
war in Burma/Myanmar, and the renewed Russian invasion of
Ukraine, and the Sudanese civil war. We have also seen across
the United States and globally a disturbing rise in anti-
Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred.
I am concerned that there are 96 countries with blasphemy
laws, criminalizing expressions insulting or offending a
religious feeling, or figure, or symbol. And I would point out
that--and I focused on this in Pakistan and in other
countries--some of these blasphemy laws provide for the death
penalty and very little evidence that anyone has even done
anything at all.
And, in fact, you often find circumstances where you have a
majority religion--and in most of these 96 countries that is
the Muslim religion--where the blasphemy law is used by someone
of the majority group, just points to somebody in the minority
group, says that they said something contrary to the majority
groups religious views, and urges their incarceration or
execution.
Blasphemy laws are a real threat to human rights, wherever
they are, particularly in Pakistan, particularly in Bangladesh,
but in other places. And when I say the majority of the
countries, certainly a majority of the populations that live
under these blasphemy laws are majority Muslim countries.
USCIRFs work shining a light on restrictions on religious
freedom and religious persecution around the globe has informed
Members of Congress and policymakers, and helped improve
American foreign policy. USCIF is--USCIRF, rather, is also
playing a critical role in documenting the Peoples Republic of
Chinas crimes against Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in
its western province where Chinese authorities continue to
place hundreds of thousands, some would say over a million
Uyghurs in concentration camps where there are reports of
torture, sexual violence, forced abortion, and forced
sterilization.
I want to particularly commend the United States Commission
on International Religious Freedom for its work to date. But
especially commend my Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries for
appointing my friend Dr. Asif Mahmood to the Commission. And
Dr. Mahmoods work has been outstanding even just in the few
months that he has served on the Commission.
And I would point out that Dr. Mahmood has received more
votes in an election in the United States than any other Muslim
running for public office. He brings an awful lot to this
Commission. And I praise Hakeem Jeffries for appointing him.
The right to practice religion, or practice no religion, is
a fundamental human right that Congress has already safeguarded
for the American people. The principal of religious freedom
should be extended to all people, not only people who come from
a particular set of religious beliefs.
I support the passage of this bill. And I yield back.
Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Sherman.
There being no further discussion of the bill, the
committee will move to consideration of amendments.
Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
There being no amendments, I move that the committee report
H.R. 7025 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.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table and staff is authorized to make any technical and
conforming changes.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 7914, Accountability
for Terrorist Perpetrators of October 7th Act.
[The Bill H.R. 7914 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. James. The bill was circulated in advance.
The clerk shall designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 7914, to require the imposition of
sanctions on the Popular Resistance Committees and other
associated entities, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1.
Short Title.
Mr. James. Without objection, the first reading is
dispensed with. And the bill is considered read and open to
amendment at any point.
Is there any discussion on the bill?
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman, I will have an amendment to
offer. But I believe I should do preliminary discussion and
then offer that amendment.
Mr. James. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Sherman. I want to thank Chairman McCaul, Ranking
Member Meeks for making this bill, the Accountability for
Terrorist Perpetrators of October 7th Act in order and bringing
it up for discussion.
I want to thank Congressman Kustoff, as well as Chairman
McCaul, and Congressman Brad Schneider, for joining me in
introducing this legislation, and my House Foreign Affairs
Committee colleagues Lawler, Moskowitz, Costa, Salazar, and
Cherfilus-McCormick for co-sponsoring this bill.
On October 7th, Hamas carried out the, the most brutal
massacre of the Jewish people that had occurred at any time
since the Holocaust. But they did not act alone. They were
joined by allied militias. One is known pretty well, and that
is the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which the United States has
long sanctioned.
But Hamas was also joined by the so-called Popular
Resistance Committees. Despite carrying out attacks that killed
American and Israeli civilian as long ago as 2023, the Popular
Resistance Committees have never been sanctioned by the United
States.
Today we move to correct that error.
The Popular Resistance Committees boasted about their role
in the October 7th massacre of 1,200 Israelis, Americans, and
others. They made these boasts on social media, issuing a
statement claiming joint responsibility, and grotesquely
showing off items stolen from the victims.
The PRC, the Popular Resistance Committees, later released
a propaganda video showing a severely injured civilian Ohad
Yahalomi, who the group took hostage on October 7th. It is well
past time that the Popular Resistance Committees, whose members
include former operatives from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic
Jihad, to join the ranks of U.S.s listed designated terrorist
groups.
Since their formation during the second Intifada roughly
two decades ago, the Popular Resistance Committees have carried
out numerous terrorist attacks across Israel and the
Palestinian territories.
In 2003, the Popular Resistance Committees bombed a United
States diplomatic convoy traveling to meet the Palestinian
Fulbright candidates, injuring a U.S. diplomat and murdering
three American security guards. Those who were killed are John
Eric Branchizio of Texas; John Martin Linde of Missouri and
ultimately moved to San Antonio, Texas; and Mark T. Parsons of
New York.
In 2004, the Popular Resistance Committee terrorists
murdered a pregnant Israeli woman and her four daughters, an
11-year-old, 7-year-old, and 2-year-old. And that is to say an
11-year-old, 9-year-old, 7-year-old, and 2-year-old daughters.
Terror attacks carried out by the Popular Resistance
Committees have been noted in principal, multiple State
Department country reports on terrorism.
My bill will finally subject the Popular Resistance
Committees and their members to financial asset-blocking
sanctions and visa blocking sanctions, something that should
have been done long ago. And will also make it illegal for
Americans to provide any aid to the Popular Resistance
Committees.
And I note that if Popular Resistance Committees coordinate
with Hamas, as they did on October 7th, to kill people, they
also likely coordinate with Hamas to move money and avoid
sanctions. So, it is necessary for Hamas sanctions to be
effective that we also sanction the Popular Resistance
Committees. This is common sense legislation that should have
been adopted long ago. That is why it has quickly gained 25
bipartisan co-sponsors, including 16 Democrats.
Under this bill it will be up to the State Department
whether to designate the Popular Resistance Committees as
either Specially Designated Global Terrorists or foreign, or a
foreign terrorist organization. Either of those designations
will accomplish the purpose of this bill.
I urge all to vote in favor of this.
And I will have an amendment to make a very slight
technical change.
Mrs. Kim of California [presiding]. Thank you.
The gentleman yields back.
Is there any further discussion?
There being no further discussion of the bill, the
committee will move to consideration of amendments.
Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
Mr. Sherman. I have a managers amendment at the desk, No.
117.
[The Amendment of Mr. Sherman follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Kim of California. Mr. Sherman is recognized.
The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
Mr. Sherman. As we are distributing the amendments, I will
point out that this amendment simply makes a clarifying and
conforming change, probably of the same type that could have
been made under the regular orders of this committee which
allows for such conforming changes. But rather than leave it to
staff, this makes that conforming change.
Mrs. Kim of California. All right.
The clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 7914 offered by Mr. Sherman of
California.
Page 3, line 20, strike measures described in subsection
(d) and insert sanctions described in subsection (c).
Mrs. Kim of California. Do any other members seek
recognition?
All right. There being no further discussion, the question
now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Sherman,
No. 117.
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 is agreed to.
Are there any further amendments?
There being no further amendments, I move that the
committee report H.R. 7914, as amended, to the House, with a
favorable recommendation.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, signify saying no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the
motion is agreed to.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table. And staff is authorized to make any technical and
conforming changes.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 8934, Sanction Sea
Pirates Act of 2024.
[The Bill H.R. 8934 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Kim of California. The bill was circulated in advance.
The clerk shall designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 8934, to require the imposition of
sanctions with respect to foreign persons engaged in piracy,
and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of----
Mrs. Kim of California. Without objection, the first
reading is dispensed with. And the bill is considered read and
open to amendment at any point.
Is there any discussion on the bill?
Mr. Sherman. Yes. I would like to discuss it.
Mrs. Kim of California. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Sherman. I am pleased to co-sponsor this bill.
Over the last year there has been a deeply concerning rise
in sea piracy.
And let me confirm, we are dealing with H.R. 8934?
Mrs. Kim of California. Yes.
Mr. Sherman. That is good.
Concerning a rise in Sea Piracy in the Gulf of Aden, the
Red Sea, and the Indian Ocean. The problem has been dual-
pronged, including Houthi attacks and a very concerning
increase in Somali piracy.
I especially want to focus on the attacks by the Houthi
because so many misguided Americans, some of them on campuses,
are chanting slogans in favor of the Houthi. I point out that
what the Houthi have done is increase the costs of bringing
food to some of the poorest people in the world. And this will
result in many thousands of deaths that will not be registered
because if you are living on two meals a day you are more
likely to die than if you are living on three meals a day, but
you die from some disease.
And the Houthi will not get their fair share of the blame.
And their supporters in America will not get their share of the
blame.
Not to mention the fact that now all ocean traffic has to
go around the continent of Africa with not only very
substantial delays and costs, costs to especially those in
Europe who then will probably not be able to fund their foreign
aid pro--foreign aid. But those ships going around Africa are
creating far more greenhouse gases than if they were able to go
through the Suez Canal.
During the early 2010's, piracy off the Somali coast was an
enormous problem. Innocent mariners were killed each year.
Hundreds of sailors were taken hostage annually. Illicit funds
supercharged the instability of Somalia.
And economic estimates suggest that piracy costs rose to
$18 billion on the global economy. And that is just what we saw
the Somali pirates in the 2010's. It is far greater now with
what the Houthi are doing along with the Somali pirates.
Though we are not yet near those levels of sailors being
held hostage, that is chiefly because ships are being routed
around Africa, with those costs, greenhouse gases, and increase
in food prices in Indian Ocean countries that is leading to
untold deaths of the very poorest in the world.
If you hijack commercial ships, you should be sanctioned.
You should not be able to come to the United States. You should
not be able to have a U.S. bank account holding dollars. And
any enterprise in the United States or affiliated with America
should not be able to transact business with you. This is
common sense deterrence that is exactly what this bill brings
to the table.
The legislation also includes appropriate humanitarian
exceptions and waivers for extraordinary circumstances. And it
encourages the United States to continue to work with partners
and allies around the world to control these waters, catch the
criminals.
Sea piracy is a global problem that imposes costs on
American consumers and consumers particularly in Europe, with
Europes dependence to a greater extent than the United States
on the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. Americans traversing these--
it also imposes costs on Americans and dangers on Americans who
are seafarers in the Indian Ocean and off the Somali coast and
in the Red Sea.
This bill is important. I am very happy to be a co-sponsor.
And I yield back.
Chairman McCaul [presiding]. The gentleman yields.
Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Jackson is recognized.
Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you very much, Chairman.
I am proud to also be a co-sponsor.
Countries across the globe, regardless of location, depend
on the security of the worlds oceans. Freedom of navigation
confirmed by the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea is
recognized as a fundamental principle of international law.
Piracy attacks are largely confined to four major regions: the
Gulf of Aden near Somalia and the southern entrance to the Red
Sea; the Gulf of Guinea near Nigeria and the Niger River Delta;
the Malacca Strait between Indonesia and Malaysia; and off the
Indian subcontinent between India and Sri Lanka.
Maritime safety and security are vital because they
represent the principal pillars upon which the global economy
and the welfare of our global village greatly depend on. The
transit of about 90 percent of world trade is facilitated
through our seas, supporting the livelihood of billions.
Piracy at sea is very costly in many ways. The disruption
in shipping has led to long delays because it avoids, has to
avoid the risk of ships being attacked and assaulted. Re-
routing results in extended days at seas for weeks.
Taking the risk by going through the regular routes means
higher insurance premiums. These higher shipping costs are
passed on to consumers through higher prices on our goods. Just
this morning the Associated Press reported that Yemens Houthi
rebels targeted a U.S., United States flagged container ship in
the Gulf of Aden on Tuesday, just yesterday.
According to the Joint Maritime Information Center, the
number of Houthi attacks on merchant vessels in June increased
to levels not seen since December. Moreover, according to the
National Maritime Organization, piracy costs the global economy
in excess of 18 billion per year, and threatens the growth and
security of international commerce.
Piracy and sea robbery are seen as a growth opportunity for
global criminal organizations. They endanger civilians, disrupt
economies, encourage corruption, and could trigger an
environmental disaster if attacks occur in congested sea lanes
traversed by oil tankers.
Moreover, cruise ships, ferries, and cargo freighters
present opportunities for terrorists to inflict human
casualties and economic harm.
We must eliminate piracy by holding individuals and all
organized crimes groups, including the Houthis, to account.
This includes sanctioning any individual or groups associated
with or benefiting in any way from piracy. These individuals or
groups should have their assets blocked, denied entry into the
U.S. by revoking their visas.
To advance development, promote prosperity and security, we
and our allies must fight immediate threats to maritime
security. Working together, we must keep our seas safe and free
from criminal Houthi gangs and other like-minded criminals
across the globe.
I urge you to support this bill.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Is there any further discussion?
There being no further discussion of the bill, the
committee will move to consideration of amendments.
Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
There being no amendments, I move that the committee report
H.R. 8934 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.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table. Staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming
changes.
We go on to our last measure.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 3042, the Millennium
Challenge Corporation Candidate Country Reform Act.
[The Bill H.R. 3042 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The bill was circulated in advance.
The clerk shall designate the bill.
The Clerk. H.R. 3042, to modify the requirements for
candidate countries under the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to
amendment at any point.
Is there any discussion on the bill?
Mr. Castro is recognized.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, chairman, for considering this
important bipartisan legislation which I authored with our
colleague on this committee, Representative Young Kim, to
reform the Millennium Challenge Corporations pool of candidate
countries.
When Congress established the MCC almost 20 years ago it
was envisioned as a selective agency that would work
collaboratively with the best-governed developing countries.
Perhaps the most visible part of MCCs vigorous selection
process is its scorecard which evaluates more than 20 different
policy indicators of good governance.
But Congress also set an income-based threshold for nations
where MCC could work. It was intended to make sure MCC focused
on developing countries and on helping the people who need it
the most. I strongly support that focus. And nothing in this
bill is intended to alter that core part of MCCs mission and
mandate.
But the way we define that threshold, based on who falls
within two categories in the World Banks estimates of per
capita gross national income has led to several issues this
legislation seeks to address.
In the decades since the original standard was defined, the
number of potential countries eligible for MCCs compacts has
shrunk by almost a third. These compacts, which need to be
ratified both by both the United States and the partner
country, can take years to negotiate, ratify, and implement.
Under the income thresholds current structure, countries can
suddenly become ineligible for assistance in the middle of a
multi-year negotiation.
Global disruptions like a pandemic, or major conflict, can
also lead to changes in a countrys eligibility. Under this
bill, the MCC would use an alternative measure from the World
Bank: the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Developments graduation threshold. This measure, which is
calculated differently than the World Banks income categories,
is more robust and considers access to capital markets and the
adequacy of national institutions.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the ranking member for your
support for this legislation, and also appreciate the work of
the committee staff, both in the majority and the minority, for
their work as well.
This bills Senate counterpart was introduced by the ranking
member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Jim
Risch, and was reported out of that committee unanimously a
year ago.
The MCC has also identified this legislation as a priority.
Given its bipartisan support in the House and Senate for this,
for this legislation, and its importance, I urge my colleagues
to support its swift passage at this markup.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Any further discussion?
There being no further discussion of the bill, the
committee will move to consideration of amendments.
Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
Mr. Castro. I have an amendment at the desk.
[The Amendment of Mr. Castro follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. Mr. Castro is recognized.
The clerk shall distribute the Castro amendment in the
nature of a substitute, No. 132.
The clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.
3042 offered by Mr. Castro of Texas.
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
Section 1, Short Title.
This Act may be cited as the Millennium Challenge
Corporation----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on the amendment.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman.
This amendment in the nature of a substitute is fairly
straightforward. It adds a required report to assess efforts by
other countries, particularly the Peoples Republic of China, to
undermine the work of the MCC.
The amendment also aligns the timing of an existing report
the MCC is required to submit to the Congress to allow them to
streamline the information they share with the U.S. Congress.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
With that, I yield back, Chair.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Does any other member seek recognition?
Ms. Kim is recognized.
Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Chairman.
I am proud to co-sponsor H.R. 3042 and support this
legislation.
The Millennium Challenge Corporation, or MCC, is a critical
soft power tool delivering real economic growth through a
competitive and transparent process that promotes democratic
governance.
The MCC model is to demonstrate that good governance
delivers for a countrys people. Signed into law in 2018, the
AGOA and MCA Modernization Act enabled MCC to develop regional
compacts linking upstream and downstream economic activities
across borders.
Extending MCCs candidate pool will allow it to cover
vulnerable upper-middle income countries without incurring
additional costs. This bill does not adjust any of the
requirements for countries to pass the eligibility scorecard
which focused on democratic rights and control of corruption.
Countries that will be added to the MCCs candidate pool through
this bill include frontline countries in competition with Belt
and Road Initiative.
This includes Belize and Paraguay in Latin America, which
are both countries that maintain diplomatic relations with
Taiwan. And they face significant and growing pressure from the
CCP.
While some countries still need to meet additional criteria
to be eligible for assistance, this reform will provide a
strong incentive to undertake the necessary governance and
market reforms.
With that, I support this bill and urge my colleagues to do
the same.
I yield the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
Does any other member seek recognition?
There being no further discussion, do any members wish to
offer an amendment to the Castro amendment in the nature of a
substitute?
There being no further amendments, I move that the
committee report H.R. 3042, 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.
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
table. And staff is authorized to make any technical and
conforming changes.
The committee will now stand in recess and will reconvene
tomorrow morning for votes.
The clerk will send out a notice with the exact time.
And we stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 2:48 p.m., the committee recessed, to
reconvene Thursday, July 11, 2024.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]