[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
__________
May 22, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-104
__________
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
56-736PDF 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 BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
KEITH SELF, Texas
Brendan Shields, Majority Staff Director
Sophia Lafargue, 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................ 31
BILLS AND AMENDMENTS
H,R. 8437........................................................ 2
Amendment(H.R. 8437ANS) offered by Chairman McCaul............... 17
Amendment (H.R.8437ANS)offered by Rep. Meeks..................... 34
Amendment (128 to H.R 8437) offered by Rep. Davidson............. 48
Amendment (110 to H.R. 8437 ANS)offered by Rep. Castro........... 51
Amendment (102 to 8427 ANS) offered by Rep.Sherman............... 54
H.R.8315......................................................... 58
Amendment (133 ANS to H.R. 8315) offered by Chairman McCaul...... 68
The H.Res.616 offered by Chairman McCaul......................... 77
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 92
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 94
Hearing Attendance............................................... 95
Markup Summary................................................... 96
Votes of Committee............................................... 97
MARKUP OF VARIOUS MEASURES
----------
Wednesday, May 22, 2024
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 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 on
Foreign Affairs will come to order. The committee is meeting
today for consideration of H.R. 8437, Maintaining our Ironclad
Commitment to Israel Security Act; H.R. 8315, The Enforce Act;
H.Res. 616, Expressing Support for the People of Afghanistan,
Condemning the Taliban's Assault on Human Rights and Specific
Targeting of Women, Girls, and Members of Religious and Ethnic
Minorities, and Expressing Support For Any Afghans Who Assisted
in the United States Mission in Afghanistan.
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 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.
Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 8437, Maintaining
our Ironclad Commitment to Israel Security Act.
[The Bill H.R. 8437 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. 8437, to provide for congressional
oversight of proposed changes to arms sales to Israel.
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to
amendment at any point. Without objection, the McCaul amendment
in the nature of a substitute No. 134, circulated to members in
advance, shall be considered as read and will be treated as
original text for purposes of amendments.
[The Amendment offered by Mr. McCaul follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. I recognize myself for an opening
statement. Recently, we have learned that the administration's
ironclad commitment to Israel is not, in fact, ironclad. In an
about face, the Biden administration is now withholding
critical arms necessary for Israel to win this war. This
administration wants to dictate how Israel executes the war
they were thrusted into. President Biden said ``If they go into
Rafah, I am not supplying the weapons period.'' That would be
similar for us to say during World War II, my father's war, you
can invade all the way up to Berlin, but you can't go into
Berlin to finish the job.
President Biden's decision to withhold weapons, the Ranking
Member and I signed off on, and were approved and appropriated
by Congress, is tantamount to an arms embargo. Israel is in a
fight for its very existence and this administration's public
break with Israel has only made negotiations and victory more
difficult. This decision was made without consulting Congress.
We had to learn about it from the media and then President
Biden's CNN interview. Congress had a long-standing role in
appropriating and overseeing security assistance and arms sales
to Israel. Just last month, we tasked a massive assistance
package for Israel which was requested by the administration.
There were no conditions, new conditions, applied on this aide
to Israel and certainly none related to Rafah. The President's
policy is circumventing congressional intent. That is why I
introduced this bill, the Maintaining Our Ironclad Commitment
to Israel Security Act, to make sure that Congress has
oversight of any changes the administration makes to previously
approved arms sales to Israel.
This bill requires the administration to notify Congress if
they are going to make any changes to existing arms sales to
Israel. And it gives Congress an opportunity to consider a
joint resolution of disapproval regarding those changes. Red
lines are meant for our enemies. Red lines are not meant for
our allies and our friends. But that is precisely what this
administration is doing to Israel. And what a terrible message
to send to our allies and an even more dangerous message that
we are sending to our adversaries. We need to stand with our
partner, Israel, and keep our commitments the way Congress
intended. And therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this
bill.
Is there any further discussion on the bill? Mr. Meeks is
recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER GREGORY MEEKS
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome Chairman
McCaul's effort to increase Congress's visibility into and
oversight over U.S. arms transfers to foreign partners and
allies, if that is really what he wants to do. And I have heard
him use in the plural allies, multiple. We have a lot of them
around the world. They are our allies. So Congress' authority
shouldn't be narrowly limited to Israel alone or done simply to
serve as a politicized attack on the Biden administration.
If we are going to change the process by which Congress
exercises its authority and oversight, these changes shouldn't
be limited to one country. It should be global in scope and
nature.
Unfortunately, this legislation misses the mark. Instead of
appropriately recognizing this committee's global oversight
role, it continued the GOP's unfortunate politicization of the
United States-Israel relationship, just mere days after the
Republican majority passed a partisan-led effort attacking the
Biden administration and selectively stripping the executive
branch of certain prerogatives and authorities. This is not
good for Israel.
The fact of the matter is in talking to a number of--the
Israeli Ambassador and others, what they want is a joint effort
from Congress, bipartisan, speaking as one so that we are not
divided, except--it was my hope that we could work to that
point as we have done in the past.
Furthermore, this bill establishes a selective and narrowly
applied mechanism by which the Republican majority can further
politicize the U.S.-Israel relationship. It does so be creating
a new joint resolution of disapproval process which only
applies to Israel. And unfortunately, in the bill's findings
and statements of congressional intent, it mischaracterizes the
administration's position and actions regarding the United
States-Israel relationship. If you want to ensure Congress and
specifically the Foreign Affairs Committee has additional
oversight and input into changes by the executive branch to
arms sales previously approved by Congress, any such change
must be global in scope. This is consistent with our
jurisdiction, consistent with our oversight authority, and what
we have sought to do on this committee for years.
Additionally, should a future President move to withhold
U.S. security assistance or arms transfers to an ally or
partner, for example, if a foreign government fails to dig up
dirt on a political appointment, Congress must have the ability
to exercise its will and prerogative in pursuit of our national
security and U.S. foreign policy commitments. Now you all know
this is not a hypothetical. We have had a former President, by
the name of Trump, take such actions. If a future President
with a similar track record and clear affinity for the world's
most brutal dictators was to try to pause arms to friends or
allies like maybe Ukraine or Taiwan, making this bill apply
globally will give Congress the ability to prevent this
scenario. So let's make it for all Presidents and let's make it
for all our allies, not an ally. And I think the chairman has
said allies, plural, not one ally. It should be applicable for
all allies.
So therefore, what I will be doing is offering an amendment
to expand the scope of this authority and encourage my
colleagues to support that amendment and oppose the underlying
bill because then we can say something. All of our allies are
looking. Ukraine is looking. Taiwan is looking. They are all
looking at us and I think this is the way and we all want to
make sure that we don't give away the authority that we have as
members of the House of Representatives to the executive
branch. So if we are serious about bringing it back, then the
amendment I am offering would be a bipartisan amendment that
will send a message to the rest of the world that the U.S.
House of Representatives will stand and make sure that our word
is heard. And with that, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Is there any further
discussion on the bill?
Ms. Kim.
Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Chairman McCaul and
Ranking Member Meeks for holding today's markup. I support H.R.
8437, the Maintaining Our Ironclad Commitment to Israel
Security Act. This bill will ensure that there is strong
congressional oversight over the administration's proposed
changes of arms sales to Israel. Congress passed, in a
bipartisan vote, much needed aid to support our ally, Israel.
And President Biden signed this into law. But earlier this
month, President Biden switched course and defied Congress by
announcing that we would pause weapons transfers to Israel,
despite his claim that his commitments to Israel haven't
changed.
Hamas will capitalize on any delays and exploit the
messaging around such a move as is it doing with the move by
the International Criminal Court to pursue arrest warrants for
Israeli leaders which makes a dangerous equivalency of Israel's
actions to that of Hamas. Let's not forget that Israel was
attacked by terrorists on October 7th and has a right to defend
itself. The administration needs to stop playing political
games with Israel's security. We would be fools to think that
an attack like this couldn't happen again in the future if
Israel cannot eliminate Hamas and we would be naive to think
just Israel is at risk. So I urge my colleagues to support this
bill and I yield the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields. Any further
discussion on the bill? Mr. Lieu is recognized.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Chairman McCaul. Thank you for your
support of the National Security Supplemental Package that
provided aid to Israel as well as Ukraine and Indo-Pacific. I
would be concerned if the administration or any administration
were to withhold military aid that Congress has approved and
appropriated. And so I am just curious, why don't you just make
this bill every country? Because we wouldn't want the
administration to say let's not give a particular weapons
systems to Ukraine either, right? So I am just sort of curious
if you would just amend it to just apply to every country.
Chairman McCaul. And we will be entertaining that argument
and discussion when Mr. Meeks offers his amendment to this
bill.
Mr. Lieu. Got it. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Any further discussion on the bill? There
being no further discussion on the bill, the committee will
move to the consideration of amendments. Does any member wish
to offer an amendment? Mr. Meeks is recognized.
[The Amendment offered by Mr. Meeks follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meeks. This amendment provides a joint resolution----
Chairman McCaul. If the gentleman will pause. The
Clerk shall distribute the amendment. And the Clerk shall
report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 8437 offered by Mr. Meeks of New York. In
Section 1, strike the quoted matter----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman from New York is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment revises
the Joint Resolution of Disapproval, the JRD process of the
chairman's underlying bill to make the process global in nature
instead of being solely applicable to Israel. It also revises
the title, replaces the sense of Congress' section to affirm
Congress' constitutionally vital role in foreign policy, as
well as affirms the importance of congressional committees
having full visibility into the oversight over executive branch
implementation of the Foreign Assistance Act and Arms Export
Control Act.
The amendment also provides for the chairs and the ranking
members of HFAC and SFRC, as members who can introduce joint
resolutions of disapprovals. While Chairman McCaul's bill only
authorizes leadership to do so, and adds certain criteria to
the elements in Section 4 requiring the administration to
analyze and report the extent to which defense articles may be
used to violate U.S. laws including the AECA and FAA.
As I stated earlier, if we are to increase Congress' role
in oversight over executive branch changes in policies
regarding arms transfers, we should do so across the board
uniformly and consistently. We should also further empower this
committee, not only a select few leadership offices in carrying
out this responsibility, given our unique role and insights
into foreign policy matters. That is what this committee is all
about and generally, we try to do these things in a bipartisan
way, irrespective of who is in charge, but working collectively
together for the benefit of the United States of America and
the voices of the people.
As I continue to say, I do support greater insight and
oversight authority. I think Congress needs to make sure that
we are the voices of the people, but not as the product of this
single and I believe politicized attack as we heard just
focused on Joe Biden. That is it. It gives them an avenue to
say Joe Biden didn't do this or Joe--but let's talk about our
jurisdiction as part of a broader effort to increase this
body's oversight responsibilities. That sounds reasonable,
sounds like something we could do collectively. So I think that
both Democrats and Republicans should support this amendment
and we are strengthening thereby our authority as members of
the House Foreign Affairs Committee and we should do that
jointly. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. I now recognize
myself in opposition of this amendment. While I appreciate the
desire to expand the scope of this bill and I appreciate the
arguments the ranking member has made, I just want to take a
moment to remind everyone what brought us here today at this
moment in time. This bill, as its name suggests, is intended to
reaffirm Congress' enduring ironclad, as the President said,
commitment to our friend and ally, Israel. Since 1948, the
request of both Democrat and Republican administrations,
Congress has appropriated some $130 billion to Israel to help
maintain its qualitative military edge. And despite the
historically close coordination between Congress and the
Executive on this issue, it has become clear in recent weeks
that the Executive no longer feels compelled to work with us to
ensure Israel's security needs are met as they have in the
past. We have to find out about the pause in weapons shipments
from the news, not from the administration. I believe that is
unacceptable.
Why single out Israel, you may ask? Because this President
singled out Israel by taking the unprecedented step of publicly
threatening to defy congressional intent by withholding weapons
to Israel including those already approved by this committee
with zero congressional consultation. This, in my view, creates
a damaging perception that despite our security assistance
agreement, our commitment to help maintain Israel's military
edge, Israel's major non-NATO ally status, and multiple
bilateral cooperation agreements that the United States is not
a reliable partner in times of Israel's need. This will only
embolden our adversaries and drive our allies and partners to
deepen relations with our adversaries like Russia and China. It
also flies in the face of decades long bipartisan, bicameral
support for Israel in historically close cooperation between
the executive branch and Congress.
This bill is intended to address exactly that, to restore
the trust and transparency that has historically existed
between our co-equal branches of government when it comes to
Israel. We do not need to address hypotheticals when we are
facing an urgent problem that needs to be addressed today. And
that is why I respectfully oppose this amendment and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Is there any other members that seek recognition? Mr. Issa
is recognized. No, I am sorry, Mr. Castro.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman. I first want to say that I
completely understand and agree with the need for greater
congressional oversight over the arms transfer process. And
while I strongly agree with President Biden's decision to
withhold 500 pound and 2,000 pound bombs, given the devastating
effects they would have in a Rafah operation that Prime
Minister Netanyahu seems committed to, I also believe that the
administration must be more transparent with the U.S. Congress
on the assistance we provide, not just to Israel, but all
countries that purchase U.S. weapons. There is a need for
greater oversight over U.S. security assistance and arms sales
and I would more than happy to work with the members of this
committee on how we can achieve that.
Unfortunately, I believe that H.R. 8487 is not a bill that
I can support. It would lay out a process that solely deals
with arms transfers to one country, Israel, but I believe we
must not hold Israel to a different standard than other
countries we provide weapons to. In other words, this bill
should apply to everyone. I support Ranking Member Meeks'
amendment which would apply the provisions of the bill equally
to any foreign country. I also believe that this Congress must
be more vigilant in conducting oversight over these transfers.
I believe all of us, Democrats and Republicans, can agree that
addressing the conflict in Gaza is urgent. The stakes cannot be
higher for both Israelis and Palestinians and that the United
States must lead.
I hope this committee will hold more full committee
hearings on this conflict including on the transfer of weapons
to Israel so that members of the committee can raise these
important questions to the administration with that forum. I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment as well and I
yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any other members
seek recognition? Mr. Issa is recognized.
Mr. Issa. I thank the chairman. I am going to associate
myself in many ways with all of the previous speakers. I think
that we should do greater oversight on all weapons transfers.
We should, in fact, assert our position. We should, in fact,
know why weapons are being withheld. All of that is not what is
before us today. And so what I want to do is call this what it
is, a first step, an appropriate one. And I want to make people
aware of something that perhaps is more significant, in my
view, than the 500 and 1,000 pound bombs that may or may not be
used in this fight.
The President has said that if the Israeli Government will
do what they ask, then they will deliver to them the locations
and the targeting information of high ranking Hamas leaders.
The other way of saying it is this administration, for whatever
reason, is withholding information that would allow more
accurate targeting of the actual people who are the targets of
this war. This war cannot and should not be about targeting
innocent Palestinians. This should not be about targeting
facilities. This should and must be about targeting, in fact,
the Hamas leaders on the behest of Iran who murdered a thousand
innocent Israelis on October 7th.
So what bothers me the most and the reason that I will take
any first step with my chairman here is that, in fact, this
administration could be delivering and assisting in the micro-
targeting of the actual culprits and until we are willing to do
that, we are part of what has been a huge amount of what some
may call collateral damage. I want that collateral damage, as
it is called, to end. And I want the President and this
administration, the Department of Defense, and anyone else, the
CIA, who may have information that would allow us to rescue the
hostages, kill or capture those who perpetrated this incredible
crime on October 7th. That is what this war should be about and
that is what American participation should be about. And when I
voted with the chairman and virtually everyone on this dais, to
provide aid to Israel, the intention was to provide them the
ability to defend themselves with the assumption that America
would stand by our ally's side and help them bring this war to
an end by finding and either capturing or killing those who
perpetrated the crime and rescuing hostages including
Americans.
So Mr. Chairman, I stand ready to vote with you, as soon as
you call the question, and I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Do
any other members seek recognition?
Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my
support and gratitude to the Ranking Member for his
alternative. Mr. Issa talks about first step, supporting your
underlying ANS as a first step. I don't understand why we only
want to take the first step when we have an opportunity to take
a more comprehensive step in codifying how Congress reasserts
control over the shipment of armaments to allies. And why we
would only pick one example over lots of others escapes me. And
I would also say that I certainly share the distinguished
gentleman from California's concern about tracking down Hamas
terrorists. I also believe we have to protect civilians in
Gaza. There cannot be any justification for 35,000 deaths in
Gaza as collateral damage in going after Hamas.
And so I believe the Executive ought to have the ability to
make discretionary judgments in trying to prevent those
civilian casualties while Congress continues to exercise
oversight over that discretionary judgment. And that is what
Mr. Meeks' amendment would do, not only for Israel, but for
other countries with which we have deep and longstanding
military supply relationships, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other
countries in the region.
And so I think we have an opportunity here to improve on
the chairman's amendment and assert, reassert congressional
control pursuant to the inherent powers of Article 1 of the
Constitution. So I am going to support Mr. Meeks' substitute
amendment and urge my colleagues to give careful consideration
to it as we deliberate in this markup. I thank the chair and I
yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any other members
seek recognition?
Mr. Barr is recognized.
Mr. Barr. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the ranking member's
amendment, not because it goes to the second step, but because
it doesn't go to the third step. If we actually want to
exercise oversight over the executive branch's conduct of
foreign policy in a comprehensive way, as my friend from
Virginia suggests, then we should do far more than exercise
oversight over arms shipments.
We should exercise oversight in a more robust way over the
executive branch's mismanagement of a wide range of foreign
policy missteps, not just a failure to full-throatedly defend
our ally Israel, but also the sanctions relief that this
Administration has offered to our adversaries, the Chinese
Communist Party, in a unilateral way, in the AIPAC Summit where
they offered up-front concessions to the CCP in exchange for
the promise down the road of some assistance by Beijing on the
shipment and the export of precursors of fentanyl poisoning
Americans that has never been reciprocated by the CCP.
Or why not conduct searching oversight over the executive
branch's mismanagement of sanctions relief of Iran, $80 billion
in oil revenues by the mullahs in Tehran gained by this effort
to revitalize a JCPOA 2.0 that literally funded October 7? Or
what about more searching oversight over the sanctions relief
that this Administration continues to provides for Vladimir
Putin, allowing the Department of Treasury, allowing Putin to
fund aggression in Ukraine, opposing my amendment to impose the
type of sanctions that would cripple Putin's war machine in the
supplemental that we offered to you Ukraine?
If you really want to take the second step and the third
step as my friends on the other side of the aisle say, why
don't we amend the ranking member's amendment so that this
committee actually has more comprehensive oversight over the
mismanagement of foreign policy by this Administration?
I oppose the amendment because the suggestion that this
just doesn't go far enough doesn't hold water, because all of
us need to do a better job with oversight over the----
Mr. Meeks. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Barr [continuing]. Massive failures of this
Administration's foreign policy. And the weakness that the
Biden Administration is projecting on the world's stage in
every conflict ranging from Israel, Ukraine, and our defense of
Taiwan. Everything this Administration does is inviting
aggression from adversaries.
So if you really want oversight, if you want to take a step
further than the chairman's bill, we need to amend the ranking
member's amendment to give us a whole lot of more--a whole more
oversight over everything that this Administration is doing to
invite aggression, not just from Hamas, but from all of our
adversaries. I yield.
Mr. Meeks. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Barr. I yield.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you. Sounds like the gentleman agrees with
me though. You would agree that then we shouldn't be focused
just on Israel. We should be focused on all of the other
countries also. So that is what this amendment really is. It is
so that we not just focus on one country. Let's focus--and it
is this President and any other President----
Mr. Barr. Yes, will----
Mr. Meeks [continuing]. So that we have more power----
Mr. Barr [continuing]. The gentleman----
Mr. Meeks [continuing]. And focus on Ukraine----
Mr. Barr. I will reclaim my time and ask my friend, the
gentleman from New York, the question: Would the gentleman
entertain my idea not only to have the additional extension of
oversight over arms shipments and other contexts in other
countries, but also providing additional congressional
oversight over the sanctions relief policies that this
Administration has chased on Russia, giving Russia a pass on
energy, giving China a pass on fentanyl? Would the gentleman
extend his concern to all of the weakness in every context of
this Administration?
Mr. Meeks. This bill is not just an oversight, and even
from what I hear, of just Biden. It is for any President, now
and in the future because we could argue in the past about any
President's international policies concerns. I could argue
about some that was wrong when Donald Trump agreed
[inaudible]----
Mr. Barr. Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time. I would
entertain an amendment that actually did what the gentleman is
suggesting, which is to say to assert congressional oversight
and retain our authority over sanctions relief. The fact that
the Biden Administration has provided a lifeline to Vladimir
Putin by consistently and repeatedly giving this thug in Moscow
the ability to finance this war shows weakness. The fact that
this Administration continues to provide sanctions relief to
Beijing when they are systematically poisoning the American
people, we should be asserting oversight over that as well.
So if the gentleman would entertain the idea of amending
his amendment so that we could assert a veto over the sanctions
relief that this Administration has delivered to all of our
adversaries all over the world, I might be more interested in
the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Meeks. We can talk about that as long as it is for any
President, even future Presidents, not just this one
Administration. We are talking about the ultimate authority of
this committee for any President of the United States.
Mr. Barr. Well, I agree with that. I agree with that. This
shouldn't be a partisan issue. It is about the congressional
role and foreign policy. And the idea that we should not have a
role to play in stopping misguided policies like a JCPOA, which
literally financed Hamas' war against Israel, suggests that we
should have a larger role here. I yield.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman's time is expired.
Do any other members seek recognition?
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman McCaul. Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. I like the chairman's bill. I like the ranking
member's amendment. I even like Mr. Barr's idea. I will vote
for the chairman's bill. I will vote for the ranking member's
amendment. I can't vote for Mr. Barr's idea because he hasn't
drafted it yet. But I would join him in the idea that it is
time for Congress to play a more assertive role in foreign
policy.
This committee should have a State Department authorization
bill every year, and it should be tied to foreign opps approps
or NDAA so that the Senate has to deal with State Department
authorization every year rather than just ignoring whatever
authorization bill we pass.
Now this bill is modest, but it is a modest step toward
congressional oversight over something very similar to
something we already have oversight of. We have oversight over
the green light. The President wants to send a weapon system.
Mr. McCaul, Mr. Meeks have to sign off. Well it is just as
important a decision for the President to have a red light and
to say that certain weapons are not going to be transferred to
Israel.
And as I understand this bill, it creates a similar
approach. It would take a unified Congress to actually prevent
the President's red light from being applicable. As I
understand this bill, it would not only take an affirmative
vote of both houses to require the President to ship the
weapons, in this case to Israel, but that would be subject to a
veto. We would need two-thirds, but at least we would have some
congressional oversight and some congressional say in a unified
congress, should that ever occur--could actually override a
Presidential decision.
Article 1 of the Constitution is Article 1 because our
Founders wanted to put policymaking in the hands of the elected
representatives of the people. Especially in the foreign policy
area things have drifted way too far.
So I like a bill that deals with Congress having a role in
this important decision as to whether--and future decisions on
arms shipments to Israel. I like the amendment that broadens
that idea to all arms shipments and all red lights that
Presidents might have. And I am happy to talk to Mr. Barr about
his legislation, but I can't fail the vote for a good bill and
a good amendment in favor of an idea because I can't vote for
an idea. And I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any other members seek recognition? Ms. Dean?
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member
Meeks. I rise in support of the ranking member's amendment to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8437.
This amendment simply takes the process proposed by the
underlying legislation by the chairman and makes them more
broadly applicable, quote, ``to any foreign country.'' All of
our allies, anybody that we send weapons to, instead of
singling out making this unique to Israel.
Expanding the scope of these processes to include all
countries would ensure consistency in how Congress exercises
oversight over the proposed executive branch changes to arms
sales on the global basis.
What is key to know: The core provisions of the underlying
legislation that outlines the notification, the review, the
congressional disapproval processes would remain applicable to
Israel. There is no reason to worry about Israel because they--
Israel would be protected, our oversight ability would be
protected in this amendment. It would just apply to any other
country receiving U.S. defense articles or services.
If the intent of this bill is truly to strengthen the
ability, our ability in Congress to perform our valuable
responsibility of oversight of executives pauses to arms sales,
then there should be no hesitation in adopting this amendment.
It only expands and confirms congressional visibility into
these activities.
I want to correct the record on one thing that the
gentleman from California said, his concern over
microtargeting, the ability of Israel to microtarget. Let's
remember what this pause was, it is. It is on 18 hundred 2,000-
pound bombs. These are not bombs that are microtargeting Hamas
leaders. These are devastating 2,000-pound bombs that we have
seen used over and over again in the same area, for example,
risking and causing the loss--a great loss of civilian life.
And the President put the pause on for the use in Rafah, a
densely populated area filled now with many refugees.
What I am thinking about is what is important: We need to
send the world a joint statement from all of us of our
oversight obligations and responsibilities. Honorable members,
what we do here matters, legislating not just for one country,
more importantly legislating not just for one President, most
importantly not just legislating for one political season.
Let's take this legislation out of the political season and
confirm our obligations of oversight in a long-term, long-
living way that legislation ought to be about, not about the
next six, eight, seven, 8 months.
I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Meeks' amendment. It is
wise, it is global, it sends the right message of
bipartisanship, and it sends the right message about what our
obligation is in a bipartisan way in oversight over any
administration. And I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
Any other members seek recognition? Ms. Kamlager-Dove.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield my time to
Ranking Member Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you.
I just have to reply to one thing that the chairman said,
and that is talking about or doubting the ironclad commitment
that Joe Biden has to Israel, because I don't think anyone
should be able to doubt his ironclad commitment to Israel.
Joe Biden was the first United States President to fly into
Israel during war time. No other President has done that. Joe
Biden has provided Israel with billions of dollars for her
self-defense. And Joe Biden is the only President of the United
States that sent U.S. troops to defend Israel from Iranian
missiles. That is ironclad defense of Israel.
No other President has done it.
And I also want to remind my Republican friends that seems
to forget that Ronald Reagan held back weapons to Israel on two
occasions. But even really reminding my Republican friends of
what they did, which--why I--made then under the same scenario
can say I question their ironclad commitment to Israel. Because
the Republican majority held back supplement aid to Israel for
6 months while Israel was at war. That is what the majority--
they themselves held back aid to Israel for 6 months.
So the credentials and the commitment of the Biden
Administration to Israel, in my viewpoint, is unquestioned. I
yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
Any other members seek recognition? Mr. Phillips.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. McCaul, for bringing this
measure to the committee. I am grateful to you and the ranking
member's leadership in this space and appreciate your interest
in robust congressional oversight of the U.S. arms sales to our
allies and partners.
I have long been a steady and staunch advocate for Israel's
security and for their right to exist and defend itself. Israel
faces a myriad of threats from Iran and its proxies including
Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and of course Hamas
in Gaza.
On October 7, Hamas launched a horrific attack in Israel
which killed 1,200 people. Twelve hundred people brutally. Two
hundred and fifty-two take hostage including Americans, which I
got to tell you I am ashamed and appalled that this isn't front
and center every single day that Americans continue to be held
hostage by a terror group in Gaza for months. It resulted in
the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and President
Biden has consistently repeated, and I will reiterate, that
Israel has a right to defend itself from terror and to assure
that Hamas is dismantled and will never again be able to
perpetrate another October 7 attack, ever again.
I have also expressed clear disappointment with Prime
Minister Netanyahu's leadership of Israel and prosecution
particularly of this war. And I have openly pushed for a
comprehensive cease-fire that would facilitate the return of
all hostages, allow an influx of humanitarian aid to--much
needed aid to civilians and the removal of Hamas from power in
Gaza once and for all.
Now, I disagree, I disagree with the President's decision
to pause certain limited weapons shipments to Israel because I
believe it moves us further away from those stated goals and
only strengthens Hamas' hand. Members of Congress should have
the opportunity to engage with the Administration on these
decisions and to put forward a joint resolution of disapproval
if they do not find the Administration's reasoning sufficient
or believe such a decision would put U.S. or allied security in
jeopardy.
And that is why I support Mr. Meeks' proposed amendment
that would broaden the scope of this bill to include
congressional oversight over any, over any Administration's
decision to pause, suspend, delay the delivery of defense
articles or services to any country for any reason at all.
However, I am concerned about moving ahead with legislation
like this in the case of Israel specifically. We talk a lot in
this body about a double standard that exists with respect to
how Israel is treated on the international stage vis---vis
other countries. And I agree.
Earlier this week we saw this happen with the International
Criminal Court, the ICC, in which the prosecutor equated Israel
with Hamas. Equated Israel with Hamas and acted against Israeli
leaders without so much as hearing from the Israeli government
regarding its own comprehensive investigative procedures and
accountability mechanisms that are currently in place. And yet
when the majority moves to upend the existing arms sale process
to create a different standard just for Israel, it only ends up
being used by Israel's adversaries to undermine Israel's
credibility.
I believe Congress must be allowed to provide oversight and
push back when appropriate against any Administration's
decision to withhold arms to any country. I will say it again:
Any Administration's decision to withhold arms to any country,
not just Israel.
Therefore, I support Ranking Member Meeks' amendment and I
do urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it
as well. With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion? Mr. Stanton. Schneider. Excuse me.
Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support
of the ranking member's amendment to the chairman's amendment
in the nature of a substitute.
Let me first say I want to associate myself with my
colleague's--previous speaker's remarks regarding the ICC
actions this week. It is outrageous. The false equivalency
between Hamas and Israel must not be allowed to stand and I
look forward to speaking with Secretary of State later today on
actions the United States might be considering to take.
With respect to this bill I am pleased the majority has
gone out of its way to highlight the Obama administration's
work on the U.S.-Israel MOU that provides the core legal
foundation for our support for Israel.
I publicly disagreed with President Biden and the
Administration's recent decision to delay a single weapons
shipment to Israel as Israel is fighting an existential war,
but I must take serious issue with the lack of context in the
bill's finding section as President Biden, Secretary Blinken,
and National Security Advisor Sullivan have repeated again and
again the U.S. commitment to Israel's defeat of Hamas in Gaza
and to its long-term security is ironclad.
President Biden was the first President to visit Israel in
wartime, 11 days after Hamas' barbaric attack on October 7. The
U.S. sent two carrier strike groups to the region and is
leading a--and led the coalition that defeated Iran's attack on
April 13. The U.S. is leading the coalition striking the
Houthis in Yemen and is working to make sure that Israel has
what it needs to successfully defeat Hamas. The U.S. has sent
hundreds of arms shipments to Israel since October 7 with
President Biden most recently providing congressional notice
that he was approving an additional $1 billion in sales.
Israel has no closer and more--or no more reliable friend
in the world than the United States and the United States has
no more important ally in the Middle East. And I am committed
to keeping in that way.
To the heart of the bill I very much support the chairman's
view that Congress must play an important role in supporting
aid to our allies, however the U.S.-Israel relationship should
be a model for how we work with our closest allies across the
world.
If a future administration should decide to abrogate our
commitments to NATO, commitments established by Congress, or
Ukraine, or Taiwan, Congress must be able to first--to use
these tools to assert its prerogative on those matters as well.
The ranking member's amendment shows that the ironclad
U.S.-Israel relationship should be a model rather than an
isolated instance. The United States must support our allies in
Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific and do so
consistently and reliably.
I urge my colleagues to support the ranking member's
amendment. I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Any further discussion on the amendment?
There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
on the amendment offered by Mr. Meeks.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye?
All those opposed, signify by saying no?
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the
amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Meeks. I ask for a roll call.
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. Self is recognized.
Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak on behalf of Mr.
Davidson's amendment to H.R. 8437, the Arms Sales----
Chairman McCaul. If the gentleman will pose, the clerk
shall distribute the amendment.
[The amendment offered by Mr. Davidson follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 8437 offered by Mr. Self of Texas. Page 4,
line 7. After ``appropriations account'' insert ``and public
law number.'' Page 14. Strike----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes on the
Davidson amendment.
Mr. Self. This is directly applicable to our previous
discussions. Section 6 of this bill defines the type of
``covered defense articles and services'' that this bill
applies to. Specifically, subparagraph 5 includes Section 506
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, better known as
Presidential draw-down authority.
Mr. Davidson's amendment would strike this language and
remove the Presidential draw-down authority from the
definition. Since the October 7th attack, the President has not
notified Congress regarding his use of the draw-down authority
for Israel.
Allowing this provision to remain in the bill sets a
terrible precedence that permits Congress to intervene in that
process if any President chooses to pause, suspend, delay, or
abrogate the delivery of items to a foreign nation, even as
part of a policy review.
The PDA is meant to be a unilateral capability that allows
the President to transfer defense articles and services from
U.S. stockpiles to foreign countries without congressional
approval during an emergency. Earlier this month, we saw
President Biden delay shipments of bombs with precision
guidance for use against tunnels to Israel, an action which Mr.
Davidson and I strongly oppose.
H.R. 8437 should stay narrowly focused on this circumstance
by only including foreign military sales and direct commercial
sales in its definition of covered defense articles and
services under Section 6.
Again, I want to be clear, while this administration
recently delayed the delivery of weapons approved by Congress,
there isn't a single incidence since October 7th where this
administration halted delivery of weapons to Israel through the
use of his draw-down authority. I believe this is a fair
amendment and allows every future President to maintain
discretion over draw-down authority.
If our colleagues want to discuss reforms to PDA, then Mr.
Davidson and I am happy to have that conversation, but this
bill is not the way to go about it. Precedent is powerful, and
we should not set this dangerous precedent in this bill.
In addition, Mr. Davidson's amendment also addresses
Section 4 of this bill, which outlines information that a
congressional notification must contain if a sale to Israel is
paused, suspended, delayed, or abrogated. Specifically, No. 5
on that list includes a description of the source of funds.
However, it only asks for the identification of an applicable
appropriations account.
Congress recently passed pro-Israel packages, such as the
Further Consolidated Appropriations Act and the Israel Security
Supplemental Appropriations Act. This amendment simply amends
this subparagraph to add in a public law number. This ensure
members would know the actual appropriations account in
question in the law passed by Congress in which funding was
allocated for the defense articles and services.
For example, both of these appropriations bills included
funding for the foreign military financing program for Israel.
If this administration or any future administration pauses an
FMS sale to Israel or an FMF sale, the appropriations account
listed in their notification would be the same.
There would be no difference. We wouldn't know the law.
However, the public law number would be different.
Moving forward, it is important for Congress to
differentiate between all these packages so we know exactly
what is being paused and why. The more information we have, the
more thorough the congressional review process can be.
It would mean that Members of Congress can be confident
about their votes on a disapproval resolution if a circumstance
eventually amounts toward that action.
Mr. Davidson thanks the chairman and his staff for their
work on this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it, and
with that, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Let me say I
support this amendment, the Davidson amendment. I thank the
gentleman for this amendment to remove Presidential draw-down
authority from the bill.
This authority, as you pointed out, has not been used for
Israel in many years. This amendment addresses specific aspects
of the base bill, and I am grateful for the gentleman's efforts
to improve the text. And I urge support from my colleagues on
this amendment.
Does any other member seek recognition on this amendment?
There being no further discussion, the question now occurs on
the amendment offered--the Davidson amendment offered by
Representative Self. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
Chairman McCaul. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
(Chorus of noes.)
Chairman McCaul. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have
it and the amendment is agreed to.
Are there any further amendments? Mr. Castro is recognized.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman. I would like to call up
amendment that is at the desk, Castro 110.
[The Amendment offered by Mr. Castro 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 the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 8437, offered by Mr. Castro of Texas. At the
end of the amendment, add the following: Section 7
modification----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The underlying Arms Export Control Act has a provision that
requires the President to notify this committee of any delivery
of defense articles if the chairman and ranking member of this
committee jointly request that notification.
As written, the law requires that the chair and ranking
member jointly request that the President provide notice of the
delivery of defense articles, subject to the Arms Export
Control Act.
The chair and ranking member have to request a notification
for a particular foreign military sale transfer, and therefore
need to know about the impending delivery in order to request
such a notification, defeating the whole purpose of the
provision.
Under my amendment, the President would need to notify the
chair and ranking member of this committee and also its Senate
counterparts, of any shipment of defense articles covered by
the Arms Export Control Act. This amendment would give this
committee access to the information necessary to truly conduct
oversight over arms transfers, including this law, and I urge
my colleagues to support my amendment.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Castro. Yield back.
Chairman McCaul. Any further discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Burchett is recognized.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member.
I oppose this amendment because it is beyond the scope and
purpose of the bill. This amendment is not focused on the
matter at hand. Instead, this sets a global requirement for the
President to notify shipments of all notified sales.
What the President did in this case is after a shipment was
ready to get delivered by boat or plane, he stopped that
shipment, regardless of whether Congress was notified of a sale
or not, including the date of its proposed shipment.
The problem we are facing is that the President stopped the
shipping--shipment, excuse me, before it went out to Israel.
The President also showed in his actions that he wouldn't
inform Congress first.
Instead, Congress learned about this and held shipments--
about the held shipment when the President went on television
and broadcast his decision to the world, and that is when I
heard about it. This amendment does not address that unilateral
action by the President, and therefore I oppose it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlemen yields. Any other member
seek recognition? There being no further discussion, the
question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative
Castro, No. 110. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
Chairman McCaul. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
(Chorus of noes.)
Chairman McCaul. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have
it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Castro. I ask for a recorded vote, Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. A roll call vote has been requested.
Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will
be postponed.
Are there any further amendments? There being no further
amendments--.
Mr. Castro. Chairman, I would like to call Sherman
amendment No. 102.
[The Amendment offered by Mr. Sherman 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 the amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 8437, offered by Mr. Castro----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 5 minutes on the Sherman amendment.
Mr. Castro. Chairman, you know----
Chairman McCaul. Mr. Sherman is recognized.
Mr. Castro. Oh, Mr. Sherman is here, all right.
Chairman McCaul. What a surprise.
Mr. Sherman. I thank Mr. Castro for offering amendment and
seek 5 minutes to speak----
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sherman. As I have said before, I support the
chairman's bill. When it comes to our closest allies,
especially Israel, that face sustained efforts from a hostile,
terrorist organization, Congress must have a say before weapons
are paused, and hopefully those weapon deliveries will not be
paused.
I especially want to thank Mr. Castro for introducing this
amendment for me.
Last week, we voted on the floor on the Israel Security
Assistance Support Act, which I voted against because I believe
this legislation will be substantially better. However, I think
it needs an amendment to put in context the recent controversy.
Yes, Biden has paused one type of weapon for what may be a
short time. And there is discussion about how this is somehow
an unprecedented rupture in the U.S.-Israel alliance. It is not
unprecedented. It is not near as significant as some are making
it out to be.
I am confident that all of the weapons systems Israel needs
will be delivered long before Israel needs them. And in fact,
the particular weapons not being delivered are weapons as to
which Israel has an enormous, a large stockpile already.
But what my amendment does is identify that fact that in
1956, 1967, 1975, 1981, 1982, and 2014, under a host of
different Presidents, we have also seen the interruption in aid
or weapons used to drive home the U.S. position on this or that
issue.
In 1991, President George H.W. Bush delayed $10 million of
critical loan guarantees in an effort to get Israel to free
settlements. A decade prior, President Ronald Reagan withheld
the deliveries of F-15s and F-16s and halted the shipment of
artillery shells. In 1956, Dwight Eisenhower threatened
sanctions not only against Israel, but also Britain and France
in an effort to force a withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula and
the Suez Canal.
In 1967, President Lyndon Baines Johnson imposed an arms
embargo on everyone involved in the Six-Day War, including
Israel. And in 1975, President George--President Gerald Ford
warned that he would reappraise ties with Israel in an effort
to pressure the Israeli Government.
This is a complicated relationship. It is a close
relationship. It is a longstanding alliance. But there are
times when various Presidents have taken actions to temporarily
withhold aid or weapons. Some of those interruptions may have
been merited, some, perhaps all, I did not agree with.
But in any case, decisions like this should reflect not
just the executive branch of government. So for that reason, I
support the bill. I think the bill, by adding this additional
finding, will put in context and will undermine the efforts by
enemies of Israel to say that there is some rupture of major
and unprecedented significance between the Biden administration
and the Government of Israel.
America stands strong behind Israel. It has stood strong
behind Israel in prior decades. There have been these
particular instances which should be referenced. And I yield
back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. I want to thank the
gentleman for his amendment, which I am pleased to accept. I
also want to thank him for being a cosponsor of the Ironclad
Act. The purpose of this bill is to facilitate congressional
oversight of any executive branch policy changes regarding
security assistance and arms sales to Israel.
This amendment makes the historical case for why this bill
is necessary and why it is important, so therefore I am pleased
to support it.
Any other members seek recognition? Mr. Schneider is
recognized.
Mr. Schneider. Just a quick point of clarification. Mr.
Sherman, you indicated 1956, 1967, 1975. I believe that should
be 1973, 1981, 1982, and 2014.
Mr. Sherman. You believe instead of 1975 it should be 1973?
Mr. Schneider. I believe it was during the Yom Kippur War.
Mr. Sherman. I will have to check my research on that.
Mr. Schneider. You should check.
Okay, it is a technical change----
Mr. Sherman. OK, in March 1975, Kissinger said that the
Ford Administration was reassessing U.S. Middle East policy,
including assessments to Israel. So while something that I may
not have referenced may or may not have occurred in 1973, I
have referenced 1975 and this report on a statement by the Ford
Administration, March 1975.
Chairman McCaul. Does the gentleman yield? Any other member
seek recognition? Mr. Self is recognized.
Mr. Self. 1973, I am glad we brought that up, because that
was a truly existential threat to Israel. And that is when
America immediately shipped tens of tons into Israel
immediately, much like we have today. That was Ironclad. I am
not sure today is.
I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further
discussion? There being no further discussion, the question now
occurs on the amendment offered by Representative Sherman, 102.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
Chairman McCaul. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
(Chorus of noes.)
Chairman McCaul. 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 now call up H.R. 8315, the ENFORCE
Act.
[The Bill H.R. 8315 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. 8315 to amend the Export Control Reform Act
of 2018 to prevent foreign adversaries from exploiting United
States artificial intelligence and enabling technologies----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to
amendment at any point.
I now recognize myself in support of the bill.
When we look at, or as we look at the potential for AI, I
compare it to what we experienced with the Manhattan Project.
This changed everything, and AI will have the same impact,
including warfare.
AI will permeate every facet of our economy and military,
serving as a bedrock upon which our prosperity and security
rest. That is why safeguarding our most advanced AI systems and
the technologies underpinning them is imperative to our
national security interest.
AI has created a technology revolution that will determine
whether America remains the world's leading superpower, or
whether it gets eclipsed by China. These technologies can be
used to safeguard democracy, or they could be used for
surveillance and oppression.
The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
reported last year that China is using commercial AI
advancements to prepare its military for a way with Taiwan. We
must understand that whoever sets the rules on its application
will win this great power competition and determine the global
balance of power.
Currently, the Bureau of Industry and Security stands as
our first line of defense, tasked with approving or denying the
export of dual use items, such as advanced semiconductors and
the tools to build them. Recently, BIS revoked the export
licenses from both Intel and Qualcomm, who were selling
semiconductors to Huawei. I commend them for finally taking
this long-overdue step.
And while BIS can stop the flow of advanced semiconductors
to the CCP and other adversaries, it lacks the clear, legal
authority to control the export of AI systems. That is why I
introduced the ENFORCE Act.
This legislation amends the Export Control Reform Act of
2018. It empowers BIS to curb the transfer of military-grade AI
systems that pose national security risks from being exported
to adversaries like China. A recent industry poll found that 64
percent of respondents, both Democrat and Republican, support
the key provisions of the ENFORCE Act.
This legislation provides BIS the flexibility to craft
appropriate controls on closed AI systems without stifling U.S.
innovation or affecting open source models. Additionally, it
provides BIS the authority to restrict American AI labs or
companies from working with the CCP, who would use this
technology against America's national security interest.
Without the ENFORCE Act, we stand previously exposed to a
host of threats. It is a loophole in our laws, and it is a
dangerous one. Our top AI companies could inadvertently fuel
China's technology--technological ascent, empowering their
military and malign ambition.
As the CCP looks to expand their technology advancements to
enhance their surveillance State and war machine, it is
critical that we protect our sensitive technology from falling
into their hands.
So with that, I urge my colleagues to support this measure,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Is there any further discussion on the bill? Ms. Dean is
recognized.
Ms. Dean. I thank the Chairman, and I represent both myself
and Ranking Member Meeks in support of this measure by you,
Chairman McCaul, and Representative Susan Wild.
There is no doubt that artificial intelligence, or AI, is a
foundational technology with the power to transform the world.
This technology, however, also raises risks for our national
security.
There is concern that our rivals, like the PRC, will use AI
in ways that will harm U.S. interests and U.S. national
security. We know foreign actors have tried to manipulate our
elections. And AI-based tools can make their task easier. AI
systems can also be used to power autonomous weapons and
strengthen offensive cyber and military capabilities.
We need to work with our allies and partners to ensure
these power tools don't end up in the wrong hands. AI
technologies made here in America should not be exported to the
entities in the PRC that would use such technology in ways that
undermine U.S. interests and national security.
To address this challenge, this bill would give the
administration permissive authority to control the export of
national security-related AI systems and technology. This would
allow the administration to craft controls on AI technologies
for potentially problematic end users or end uses.
My thanks to the chairman and to Representative Wild of
Pennsylvania for working on a bipartisan way--working in a
bipartisan way on this bill and incorporating feedback from the
administration. We also made the definitions of AI and AI
systems in the bill temporary so that the administration may
undertake its usual regulatory process and solicit public
comment so that the final definitions are appropriately scoped.
Finally, for BIS to tackle this challenge, we need to
adequately resource BIS. BIS urgently needs more funding to
effectively implement and enforce the growing list of controls
and mandates it is given.
And with that, I support this bill, and I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. I thank the gentlelady for her support. Is
there any further discussion on the bill? Ms. Wagner is
recognized.
Mrs. Wagner. I thank the Chairman for his work on this
measure, and I thank Ms. Wild also for her work. The bipartisan
ENFORCE Act, H.R. 8315, I am very proud to cosponsor.
The United States has long been the unquestioned leader in
developing cutting-edge technologies like artificial
intelligence. The People's Republic of China, however, is bent
on replacing the United States as the world's only true
superpower, and it is using every single tactic at its
disposal, including outright intellectual property theft to
erode our advantage.
We know that China relies on American hardware and AI to
develop its military capabilities, a dangerous subversion of
U.S. innovation and a contributor to global instability. And
yet, while the United States has the ability to stop the export
of the semiconductors and tools that can be used to create the
most powerful AI systems, we can't prevent China from accessing
the AI systems themselves.
A U.S. company could export AI technology to entities in
adversarial nations without any ability for the U.S. to act if
it puts our national security at a significant risk. The
chairman's bill closes this gap in our export control regime to
ensure that the United States can keep these sensitive systems
out of the hands of our adversaries.
It will enable the U.S. to preserve our leadership while
denying China the technology it needs to prepare for an
invasion of Taiwan.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields. Is there any
further discussion on the bill? There being no further
discussion, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute
at the desk, and I ask for its consideration at this time.
[The Amendment offered by Chairman McCaul follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute my amendment in
nature of a substitute, No. 133.
The clerk shall report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.
8315, offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas. Strike all after the
enacting clause and insert the following: Section 1, short
title----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
Is there any discussion on the amendment? There being no
discussion on the amendment, the question now occurs on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute, 133, offered by
myself.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
Chairman McCaul. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
(Chorus of noes.)
Chairman McCaul. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have
it, the amendment is agreed to.
Are there any further amendments? There being no further
amendments, I move that the committee report H.R. 8315, as
amended, to the House with a favorable recommendation. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
Chairman McCaul. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
(Chorus of noes.)
Chairman McCaul. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have
it and the motion is agreed to. Without objection----
OK, I request a recorded vote. 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. 616, expressing
support for the people of Afghanistan and condemning the
Taliban's assault on human rights and specific targeting of
women, girls, and members of religious and ethnic minorities
and expressing support for any Afghans who assisted in the
United States' mission in Afghanistan.
[The Resolution offered by Chairman McCaul follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman McCaul. This resolution was circulated in advance.
The clerk shall designate the resolution.
The Clerk. H.Res. 616, expressing support for the people of
Afghanistan, condemning----
Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is
dispensed with. The resolution is considered read and open to
amendment at any point.
Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, circulated to members in advance, shall be
considered as read and will be treated as original text for
purposes of amendment.
Let me just recognize myself.
Afghanistan is facing a devastating humanitarian crisis
under the tyrannical rule of the Taliban. Hard-fought-by gains
to advance women's rights and promote democracy were wiped out
by President Biden's decision to unilaterally withdraw.
Today, Afghanistan is the most oppressive country in the
world for women and girls. Girls have been banned from
attending school beyond sixth grade. Women are banned from
working for NGO's. We know in fact that taxpayer funding aid is
flowing to Taliban fighters and loyalists rather than suffering
Afghan women and children.
We know the Taliban continues to hunt down those who worked
with the United States and execute them. We know the Taliban is
oppressing religious minorities and brutally suppressing free
speech and freedom of the press. And we know that the Taliban
has brought back public executions and continues to harbor
terrorists.
The U.S. must adamantly oppose these human rights abuses,
and we must work with our friends and allies to pressure the
Taliban to lift these barbaric edicts. And it is time we do
everything we can to expedite SIV applications, hold the
Taliban to account for their crimes.
The people of Afghanistan must know that the United States
stands behind them. We will do everything we can to help them,
in conjunction with the international community. And that is
exactly what this resolution does. I support this resolution.
And is there any further discussion on the resolution? The
author, Mr. Crow, is recognized.
Mr. Crow. I want to thank Chairman McCaul and Ranking
Member Meeks for holding this markup today and for considering
H.Res. 616, a resolution expressing support for the people of
Afghanistan; condemning the Taliban's assault on human rights
and the specific targeting of women, girls, and members of the
religious and ethnic minority groups; and expressing support
for Afghans who assisted in the United States' mission in
Afghanistan.
I want to thank my co-leads, Representative Wild,
Representative Waltz. And thank you as well to the minority and
majority staff for their work on this measure.
I served three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I have
often said that I may not be here today were it not for the
brave Afghan partners who worked alongside the U.S. Government
and in furtherance of our mission.
So this resolution is in part an acknowledgment of their
service and their sacrifice, and a commitment that we will
honor our promise and continue to improve the processing and
evacuation of the Afghan special immigrant visa applicants and
Priority-1 and Priority-2 applicants.
But this resolution is also a recognition of the dire human
rights situation in Afghanistan and our commitment to continue
to work with our allies and partners to address humanitarian
concerns.
United Nations estimated in December 2023 that 69 percent
of the Afghan population lacks access to basic items,
utilities, and essential services. And an estimated 15.8
million Afghans were experiencing food insecurity.
These are startling and untenable figures. This ongoing
humanitarian and financial crisis in Afghanistan has been
further exacerbated by the Taliban's repressive policies. Many
of the restrictive policies are laid out within this
resolution, but the Taliban has expressly targeted women and
girls, religious minority groups, human rights defenders, civil
society activists, members of the media, and former government
and military officials.
These restrictive policies have undermined respect for
human rights and further imperiled Afghanistan's standing. I
believe it remains in our global interest, both from a moral
and national security perspective, to continue our commitment
to supporting the Afghan people in their pursuit of democracy
and human rights and to prevent the degradation of human rights
and repressive policies from fueling external issues.
To that end, this resolution demonstrates a commitment to
addressing these concerns, including through encouraging the
U.S. Government to work with allies and partners to develop a
long-term strategy to address humanitarian, counterterrorism,
and other shared policy concerns.
So I strongly urge my colleagues to join us in supporting
this bipartisan resolution to make sure that we do not forget
our decades-long commitment to Afghanistan and our commitment
that must continue in perpetuity to support the folks who are
striving for freedom and democracy in this land in which many
of us left pieces of our heart and our minds and our history.
So with that, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. And we thank the
gentleman for bringing forward this resolution. Also for your
service in the Afghanistan war.
Is there any further discussion of the resolution? Ms.
Manning is recognized.
Ms. Manning. Thank you, Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member
Meeks.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.Res. 616, an important
bipartisan resolution introduced by our colleagues,
Representatives Crow, Wilson, Wild, and Waltz, which highlights
and condemns the Taliban's brutal human rights abuses,
particularly against women and girls and reaffirms our ongoing
commitment to the basic human rights of the Afghan people.
Mr. Chairman, since 2021, after years of progress for women
and girls in Afghanistan, we have witnessed the tragic
consequences of the Taliban's takeover.
The Taliban have imposed more than 100 draconian decrees on
Afghan women, forcibly treating them like property, limiting
their ability to work, to get an education, or move freely in
public without their husbands or male relatives. Civil society
and media organizations have crumbled, with anyone openly
speaking in opposition to the Taliban's rules facing threats
and violence.
Earlier this year, the MENA subcommittee held a hearing
with officials at the State Department and USAID, who testified
about the devastating reality for Afghan women, the Taliban's
harsh restrictions, and the severe physical and mental health
impacts these women are experiencing as a result.
We need to mobilize the international community to put
pressure on the Taliban and to provide basic human rights and
opportunities for half of its population.
But we must also do much, much more to support the Afghan
people. That is because the Taliban continues to fail to meet
the basic needs the Afghan people deserve. According to the
World Food Programme, Afghanistan is on the brink of economic
collapse, with the local currency at an all-time low and food
prices on the rise.
Acute malnutrition is above emergency thresholds in 25 out
of 35 provinces and is expected worsen, with almost half of
children under five and a quarter of pregnant and breastfeeding
women needing lifesaving nutritional support in the next 12
months.
Many Afghans, including those who fought alongside us,
remain threatened by the Taliban, and we must not abandon them.
That is why this bipartisan resolution focuses our attention on
the Taliban's human rights abuses, expresses Congress's
commitment to supporting the Afghan people, and outlines
important steps for the State Department and the administration
to take.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Representative Crow and all
of my colleagues for their leadership and commitment to the
people of Afghanistan. I am proud to cosponsor this bipartisan
resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields. Any further
discussion? Mr. Phillips is recognized.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also support H.Res. 616, authored by my friend and
colleague, Representative Crow.
Since the Taliban's forceful takeover of Afghanistan in
August 2021, I have been horrified, disgusted by the ruthless
repression. Under their rule, human rights have deteriorated
significantly, particularly, as it has been said, for women and
girls.
Afghan woman cannot access secondary education or higher
education. They are banned from most employment with
international NGO's and the United Nations, and are severely
restricted in their ability to even leave their homes or travel
outside without a male relative.
What is more, the Taliban have cracked down on local media
and freedom of speech, arresting and detaining journalists,
civil society activists, and human rights defenders who dare
raise their voices to question the Taliban's extremism.
While I do believe it was time for the United States to
leave Afghanistan, it does pain me deeply to see the Afghan
people, especially women, girls, human rights activists, and
those who assisted the United States of America, to be forced
to live under the Taliban's murderous rule.
The United States has not and should not recognize the
Taliban's corrupt regime. Nevertheless, as this resolution lays
out, we must continue to stand by the Afghan people and support
them during these challenging times.
More than 28 million people, almost two-thirds of the
Afghan population, needed humanitarian aid in 2023. And over
half of the population, over 23 million, will continue to
require such aid to survive in 2024.
The United States' humanitarian assistance contributions to
Afghanistan are an integral component of our support for these
struggling people. And while we must ensure that we have the
proper oversight and accountability to ensure the aid does not
fall into the hands of the Taliban, we must be sure not to turn
our back on the population that is suffering one of the world's
worst humanitarian crises.
I am heartened, though, by the bipartisan support this
resolution has garnered, and I hope that it will yield more
opportunities to work together to create a comprehensive policy
toward Afghanistan that continues to prioritize the Afghan
people, human rights, countering terrorism, and expediting
processing and evacuation of Afghan civs, P1 and P2 applicants.
With that, I am proud to cosponsor this measure and urge
its expeditious consideration on the floor. And with that, Mr.
Chair, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further
discussion on the resolution? Ms. Wild is recognized.
Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in support of my friend and colleague Representative
Jason Crow's resolution, H.Res. 616. I am proud to be a co-lead
of this bipartisan effort to stand with the people of
Afghanistan in view of the Taliban's systemic attacks on the
rights and dignity of women and girls, religious and ethnic
minorities, journalists, and dissidents, among many others.
We cannot remain silent in the face of injustice. That is
why this resolution condemns the Taliban's abuses, encourages
the Secretary of State to determine whether the Taliban's
actions against women and girls meets the standard for crimes
against humanity, and encourages the administration in
coordination with international organizations, allies, and
partners to develop a long-term strategy to address our most
vital priorities in Afghanistan, including countering the
Taliban's actions and pressing for accountability; protecting
women's rights and human rights defenders; supporting the
efforts of the Afghan people to build a future of equal rights,
rule of law and democracy; advancing counterterrorism efforts;
expediting processing and evacuation of allies who worked
alongside our service members, alongside Afghans at risk of
persecution for their background or beliefs.
On behalf of our service members who risked, sacrificed,
and lost so much in our Nation's longest war, let us come
together to support a future that is worthy of the Afghan
people.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back. Any further
discussion? Mr. Stanton is recognized.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to speak in support of Congressman Crow's
bill, H.Res. 616, which rightfully condemns the Taliban's
assault on human rights and the specific targeting of minority
groups.
Indeed, over the last 3 years, the Taliban has tightened
its oppressive hold over the Afghan people. Entire families
have been displaced. Girls are barred from schools. Terrorist
organizations are emboldened. And the elderly are starved.
The Hazara, a long-persecuted ethnic minority that accounts
for nearly 20 percent of Afghanistan's population, have
historically been targeted by the Taliban. A small Hazara
community resides in my district, and I have had the privilege
of hearing their stories.
I would like to share the words of a Hazara human rights
defender who is now pursuing his Ph.D. at Arizona State
University. ``We are being targeted at wedding halls, at
mosques, at the athletic club, and on public transportation.
All women and girls in Afghanistan are being blocked from
schools. The Hazara girls are targeted even more because they
are an ethnic and religious minority. We are tired of the
disappearances, tired of the casualties, tired of the war.''
H.Res. 616 also reminds us of that many Afghans who served
the United States' mission in Afghanistan are targets of the
Taliban. This includes the fearless members of the Female
Tactical Platoon, many of whom identify as Hazara. The members
of the Female Tactical Platoon who served alongside United
States soldiers on elite missions are still awaiting permanent
status in the United States.
I bring their stories before the committee again and again
to underscore the importance of congressional action to support
them. Our obligation to our allies is immediate. We must pass
the Afghan Adjustment Act, and we must loudly denounce the
abuses suffered by women, men, children, and brave service
members that seek freedom from persecution in their home
country.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.Res. 616, and I
yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further
discussion on the resolution? Mr. Self is recognized.
Mr. Self. First of all, I thank my colleague Mr. Crow for
his service in Afghanistan. I am sure I was not there as long
as you were, so thank you.
I will also point out, though, that I am going to support
this, but we are in this position because we did not support
our Afghan allies in July and August 2021. We are in this
position because we badly underestimated the timeline that
Taliban would take over Afghanistan.
We are in this position because overnight, without alerting
our allies at all, any of our allies, we withdrew from
Afghanistan in a disastrous withdrawal. So I will point out
that our administration put us in this position to pass this
resolution. I am going to support it, but I need, we all need
to remember, we are in this position because of our actions in
July and August 2021.
I yield back.
Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further
discussion on the resolution? There being no further discussion
on 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. 616, as amended, to the House with a favorable
recommendation. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
Chairman McCaul. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
(Chorus of noes.)
Chairman McCaul. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it and the motion is agreed to. Without objection, the motion--
--
Mr. Crow. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman McCaul. Motion to reconsider is laid on the table
and a roll call vote has been requested. Pursuant to the
chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed.
With that, the committee will stand in recess. We will
reconvene at 12:30 to vote.
[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the Committee recessed to
reconvene at 12:30 p.m., the same day]
Chairman McCaul. Committee will come to order. The
committee postponed proceedings on the roll call vote on the
Meeks amendment to H.R. 8437, on which the noes have prevailed
by voice vote. The question now occurs on agreeing to the
amendment.
Members will vote using the electronic voting system. The
clerk will open the vote.
Have all members voted? Does any member wish to record or
change their vote?
The clerk will close the vote and report the tally.
The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 22, the noes are 24.
Chairman McCaul. The noes have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
The committee postponed further proceedings on the roll
call vote on amendment No. 110, offered by Representative
Castro to H.R. 8437, on which the noes have prevailed by voice
vote. The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment.
Members will vote using the electronic voting system. The
clerk will open the vote.
Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change
their vote?
The clerk will close the vote and report the tally.
The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 22, the noes are 24.
Chairman McCaul. The noes have it, and the amendment is not
agreed to.
There being no further amendments, I move that the
committee report H.R. 8437, as amended, to the House with a
favorable recommendation. All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
Chairman McCaul. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
(Chorus of noes.)
Chairman McCaul. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have
it and the motion is agreed to.
Mr. Meeks. Roll call.
Chairman McCaul. A roll call vote has been requested.
Members will vote using the electronic voting system. The
clerk will open the vote.
Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change
their vote?
The clerk will close the vote and report the tally.
The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 33, the noes are 13.
Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed
to.
Without objection, the motion will be considered as laid on
the table. The measure is ordered favorably reported, as
amended, as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming
changes.
The committee postponed further proceedings on reporting
H.R. 8315, the ENFORCE Act, as amended favorably, to the House,
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. The question now
occurs on reporting the measure to the House with a favorable
recommendation.
Members will vote using the electronic voting system. The
clerk will open the vote.
Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change
their vote?
The clerk will close the vote and report the tally.
The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 43, the noes are 3.
Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed
to. Without objection, the motion will be considered as laid on
the table. The measure is ordered favorably reported, as
amended, as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming
changes.
The committee postponed further proceedings on reporting
H.Res. 616, Expressing support for the people of Afghanistan,
condemning the Taliban's assault on the human rights and the
specific targeting of women, girls, and members of religious
and ethnic minorities and expressing support for any Afghans
who assisted the United States in its mission in Afghanistan,
as amended favorably, to the House, in which ayes prevailed by
a voice vote.
The question now occurs on reporting the measure to the
House with a favorable recommendation.
Members will vote using the electronic voting system. The
clerk will open the vote.
Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change
their vote?
The clerk will close the vote and report the tally.
The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 46, the noes are 0.
Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed
to. Without objection, the motion will be considered as laid on
the table.
This concludes the consideration of measures noticed by the
committed. We will begin the hearing with Secretary Blinken at
1:45.
There being no further business to transact, the committee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:54 p.m., the committee adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]