    [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

                                   __________

                               September 24, 2024

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 118-135

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHICS 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
    63-405 PDF                    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................     3

                              BILLS AND AMENDMENTS

    The Amendment #1 offered by Rep. Meeks...........................    28
    The Amendment #2 offered by Rep. Meeks...........................    33
    H.R. 8683........................................................    35
    The Amendment offered by Rep. Huizenga...........................    41
    H.R. 9564........................................................    52
    The Amendment offered by Rep. Issa...............................    63
    H,R. 9719........................................................    65
    The Amendment offered by Rep. Kim from California................    75
    H.R. 9718........................................................    86
    H.R. 1449........................................................    91
    H.R. 9172........................................................    99
    H. Res 1435......................................................   107
    H.R.9082.........................................................   114

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................   122
    Hearing Minutes..................................................   124
    Hearing Attendance...............................................   125
    Markup Summary...................................................   126
    Markup Committee Report..........................................   128
    Votes of Committee...............................................   157

                            Materials for the Record

    Tracking China's Control of Overseas Ports, submitted by Rep.
      Meeks..........................................................   161
    Letters submitted by Rep. Meeks..................................   173
    Statement for the record submitted by Rep. Connolly..............   180
    Intro to the Global guidelines for countering antisemitism,
      submitted by Rep. Manning......................................   184
    Letter to Speaker Johnson, submitted by Rep. Titus...............   191

                           MARKUP OF VARIOUS MEASURES

                                  ----------

                          Tuesday, September 24, 2024

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

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:25 a.m., in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael McCaul
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF 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 a committee report recommending the
    House of Representatives find Antony Blinken, Secretary of the
    U.S. Department of State, in contempt of Congress for refusal
    to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on
    Foreign Affairs.
        H.R. 8683, to require the Secretary of Defense of and the
    Secretary of State to monitor efforts by the People's Republic
    of China to build or revise strategic foreign ports and for
    other purposes; H.R. 9564, the Houthis Human Rights
    Accountability Act; H.R. 9719, the Strengthening U.S. Aid
    Management Act; H.Res. 1348, Urging the Government of Nigeria
    to Immediately Release Tigran Gambaryan from Imprisonment; H.R.
    9172, the Discretion Initiative for Stored Precursors Overseas
    and Safe Enforcement, the DISPOSE Act; H.R. 9718, Extending and
    Enhancing U.S.-U.K. Nuclear Cooperation for Mutual Defense
    Purposes Act; H.Res. 1449, Condemning the Global Rise of Anti-
    Semitism and Calling Upon Countries and International Bodies to
    Counter Anti-Semitism; H.Res. 1435, Raising Concern About the
    Proposed Constitutional Reforms in Mexico; and H.R. 9082, the
    Summit of the Americas Act.
        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 reports that may
    be produced on any of today's measures. Without objection, so
    ordered.
        Pursuant to notice, I now call up the report recommending
    that the House of Representatives find Antony Blinken,
    Secretary, U.S. Department of State, in contempt of Congress
    for refusal to comply with the subpoena duly issued by the
    Committee on Foreign Affairs.
        For purposes of markup, I move that the committee report it
    favorably to the House. The report was circulated in advance
    and the clerk shall designate the report.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        The Clerk. Resolution recommending that the House of
    Representatives find the Secretary of State, Antony J. Blinken,
    in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with the subpoena
    duly issued by the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
        Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is
    dispensed with. The report is considered read and open to
    amendment at any point. I now recognize myself for a statement.
        I wish we were not here today. However, Secretary of State
    Antony Blinken brought this upon himself. I take no joy in this
    procedure. After months of the Secretary ignoring countless
    requests for his testimony, I was forced to subpoena him to
    discuss the findings of my report into the catastrophic
    withdrawal from Afghanistan. Secretary Blinken violated that
    subpoena and refused to appear and now I have no choice but to
    move forward with holding him in contempt of Congress.
        Let the record reflect that for 4 months I patiently asked
    for and waited on his availability in September. But instead of
    working with me, Secretary Blinken made false promises and
    accused me of politicizing this important issue. By failing to
    appear before the committee to discuss this serious event, he
    is politicizing the Afghanistan withdrawal. His spokesperson
    has also presented outright lies on his behalf both to the
    press and to the American people. He claims Secretary Blinken
    has appeared 14 times before Congress and 4 times before my
    committee to discuss Afghanistan.
        However, the facts speak for themselves. The Secretary has
    never testified on this committee's investigation, not once. In
    fact, while I have served as chair in the 118th Congress, he
    has appeared only two times before this committee, both times
    for statutorily mandated hearings on the State Department's
    budget. Throughout this committee's investigation, the
    Secretary and the State Department obstructed my access to
    witnesses and documents at every turn. It was their failure to
    produce documents and testimony that determined the timing of
    my Afghanistan report and today's contempt markup. This was not
    my time line. It was theirs.
        On May 22d, I publicly requested Secretary Blinken testify
    on my report in September. What was my goal? A single hearing
    dedicated to fixing the many issues at the State Department
    that my report had uncovered. Following my public request,
    Secretary Blinken's State Department ignored every outreach
    from my team. Finally, on August 19th, I spoke to him directly
    on the phone. He promised me a date would be ``nailed down in
    the next week.'' But he broke that promise and weeks passed. I
    received no word from them. And then on September 3d, I
    informed Secretary Blinken that a subpoena would be coming and
    forthwith if he did not appear in September. I offered him any
    date, any time that month. But rather than step up to the plate
    as a leader, he offered me his subordinates, two deputies who
    did not even serve at the State Department during the
    withdrawal. That is not leadership. That is passing the buck.
    This committee expects better.
        This is the committee of jurisdiction over the State
    Department. Our veterans and our Gold Star families and the
    American people deserve better from the Secretary of State.
    After that call, I was forced to issue a subpoena compelling
    his appearance before this committee. I have proof Secretary
    Blinken disregarded my numerous good-faith efforts not once,
    not twice, but three times in this email. In fact, I offered
    every day in September. However, the Secretary could not make 1
    day in September available for this committee, for this
    Congress, on such an important matter. Not a single day. He and
    his team did not even bother to inform me of his schedule.
        Still, when I learned through a public press statement that
    he would be in the Middle East, I changed the date for the
    hearing to accommodate his overseas schedule. Again, I informed
    his staff of the new date. Unsurprisingly, I received no
    response. That is a lack of respect that I as chairman and this
    committee received from this Secretary.
        Under the leadership of Secretary Blinken, 13 brave
    American lives were tragically murdered by an ISIS-K terrorist
    and many more injured and many Afghans were killed as well.
    Rather than take accountability for this, the Secretary hides
    from the American people. He would prefer to hide rather than
    be before this committee today.
        The Secretary's willful indifference has brought us to this
    moment. I take no joy in moving forward to hold the Secretary
    of State in contempt of Congress. It is an extraordinary act.
    However, Article 1 of the United States Constitution entrusts
    Congress with the power of oversight and to legislate.
    Secretary Blinken's failure to appear violates that. It
    violates Article 1 of the Constitution. It violates our ability
    to perform oversight. And it violates our ability to legislate
    on a hugely important issue, perhaps the most important issue
    that occurred during this Presidency.
        My sincere hope was that Secretary Blinken's testimony in
    September would inform that legislation to prevent a foreign
    policy disaster like this in the future. However, we will not
    have that testimony. Instead, he has prioritized politics and
    optics over the needs of our service members, our Gold Star
    families and the American people. In my judgment, he and the
    White House have made a judgment call. The risk simply
    outweighs the reward. And to my colleagues, your actions today
    will speak to the respect you afford Congress and its
    constitutional responsibility.
        I urge you all to join me in supporting this measure,
    holding Secretary of State Antony Blinken in contempt of
    Congress for violating a subpoena duly issued by this
    committee. For without that, without that power, not only does
    that render this committee meaningless, but so, too, does it
    render the Constitution of the United States meaningless. With
    that, I turn to the Ranking Member of the committee, Mr. Meeks.

           OPENING STATEMENT FOR RANKING MEMBER GREGORY MEEKS

        Mr. Meeks. This indeed is a sad day for this committee, a
    sad day. A committee that should be focused on the security of
    the United States of America, a security that should not be
    utilized for a political stunt made for Fox News. That is what
    we will see tomorrow. That is what this is, a political stunt,
    plain and simple.
        Holding someone in contempt is a grave and rarely used
    congressional power, meant for instances of real obstruction.
    All this is is a rushed vote that undermines the seriousness of
    that power. It is objectively political in purpose, given that
    Secretary Blinken has already willingly responded to questions
    on the Afghanistan withdrawal in 14 public congressional
    hearings since August 2021. And at the Secretary's direction,
    the State Department has produced over 20,000 pages of
    documents, made 15 Department witnesses available for
    interviews, enabled members to view the July 2021 dissent cable
    on Afghanistan and provided thousands of pages of interview
    notes from its own Afghanistan after-action review. There is no
    obstruction here. That is cooperation. This is political
    theater.
        Secretary Blinken has engaged in good faith to reach a
    compromise on complying with the chairman's subpoena to testify
    again, including by providing alternative dates for his
    testimony. In fact, which I did not hear, he, in a letter
    referred to and memorialized two phone conversations that they
    had on August 19th and on September 3d on which the Secretary
    personally sought to reach an accommodation by sharing his
    availability to testify and if the chairman insisted and it was
    dates that he was not available, offered alternative witnesses
    for hearing dates. And let me just say that the alternative
    dates were denied because today, Secretary Blinken is with the
    President. Where is he? He is at the U.N. conducting high-level
    diplomacy to advance the national security interests of the
    United States at the United Nations on topics ranging from
    Russia's illegal war in Ukraine which I hope all of us are
    serious about, doing this job, to grant getting support to end
    a humanitarian crisis in Sudan, to working to get a cease-fire
    in Gaza. Why is there suddenly a rush to hold this contempt
    vote when the Secretary has made it very clear time and time
    again that he is willing to testify?
        Now if it is the majority's objectives to conduct fact
    finding and debate the chairman's legislative proposal in a
    hearing with Secretary Blinken, those are objectives of which I
    would agree. But what is the urgency? Is it the election coming
    up on November the 5th? Is it politics that is causing this
    urgency? Why are we rushing to hold the Secretary of State in
    contempt now when we know that he is willing to testify on any
    other date when he is not in Egypt working on a cease-fire in
    Gaza or meeting with multiple visiting dignitaries in New York.
    In fact, I was there all day yesterday and they all were
    waiting to talk to him, numbers of countries wanting to speak
    to him and the President about the world issues that are going
    on. The fact of the matter is, if he wasn't there, probably you
    would say that he is neglecting his duties, that he should be
    there talking to the world leaders trying to get things at
    hand.
        It is not difficult for the American people to see this for
    what it is, political theater, an attempt to put another senior
    Biden administration official's name into negative headlines,
    just like the majority did when they peppered their own
    investigative report with over 200 references to the Vice
    President, though she was only mentioned 3 times in more than
    3,000 pages of testimony, all of a sudden trying to insert her
    name. Why? One reason, politics.
        If we were truly concerned with additional fact finding, we
    could follow the testimony in our investigation which revealed
    President Trump ordered multiple troop draw downs despite the
    Taliban's lack of compliance with the Doha deal. Don't want to
    talk about that. We could seek testimony from former Trump
    officials with knowledge of the former President's
    decisionmaking. Don't want to talk about that. We could call
    for testimony from former Trump officials who witnesses in our
    investigation said did not prepare for the looming May 2021st
    withdrawal dates and were uncooperative during President
    Biden's transition to office. Don't want to talk about that.
    And yet, as evidenced by the majority's investigation and also
    by this week's rushed resolution to the House floor,
    Republicans contort themselves at every opportunity to avoid
    monitoring former President Trump except to revise the
    historical record about his actions.
        But for the Republicans, this investigation is just not
    about serious fact finding or oversight, it is about narrowing
    the scope of the end of the United States' longest war to just
    a few months during the Biden administration, not for the
    purpose of getting the facts right, but for political show, to
    play politics. You know, we owe, we owe it all those who
    served, we owe to the 2,461 service members who made the
    ultimate sacrifice during our 20 years in Afghanistan including
    the 13 brave souls killed by an ISIS bomb at Abbey Gate as they
    helped evacuate more than 120,000 people to conduct a
    nonpartisan oversight looking at the entire 20 year war effort.
    That is what this committee should be doing. That is serious
    review to make sure not that we play politics, but we make sure
    that we look at what happened and what we should be doing in
    the future. That is what should be taking place.
        If you want to object to President Biden's decision to
    finally end this war, then that is what you should say. You are
    opposed to President Biden ending the war, not hide behind an
    oversight charade. Tell us your alternatives. What would you
    have done? Would you have stayed at war? And your ideas on how
    we can do better going forward, if that is going after the
    facts and not having a political charade.
        You know, we can have policy disagreements on this, but our
    oversight tools should not be abused to try to get a political
    partisan gain. So I strongly opposed this hasty and political
    contempt report and urge my colleagues to join me in opposing
    it.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. I will State for the
    record when the minority was in charge, they only had one
    hearing on Afghanistan and conducted no transcribed interviews.
    In fact, they had no investigation on such a serious matter.
        Is there any further discussion on the report? Mr. Wilson
    is recognized.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, Mike McCaul, for your courageous leadership to uphold
    the constitutional duties of the House Foreign Affairs
    Committee and the Secretary of State which has been pending for
    4 months since May. Secretary Blinken has sadly demonstrated a
    complete and utter disregard for 4 months since May for the
    legitimate oversight of this committee and more significantly,
    the authority to the Constitution and the laws of our states
    and nation.
        There is clear and irrefutable authority to subpoena and
    the Secretary's partisan disregard for 4 months is a
    continuation of the Biden-Harris administration's plan to hide
    the truth from the American people. As an attorney myself, it
    is clear that the Secretary is criminally in violation of 2
    U.S.C. Section 192. This subpoena was issued in May. Had the
    date or time been an issue, it could have been easily possible
    to accommodate schedules as indicated by Chairman McCaul.
    Instead, the Secretary chose to engage in partisan obfuscation
    for 4 months to the detriment of the American people who
    deserve a government that is accountable to its constitutional
    checks and balances.
        As a former journalist myself, I am particularly
    disappointed that corporate media has for 4 months has failed
    to support accountability which should be expected in a
    democracy. Blinken's failure led to 13 Americans murdered at
    Abbey Gate in Afghanistan and 3 Georgia Army Reservists
    murdered January 28th this year with dozens permanently injured
    of the Georgia Unit suffering traumatic brain injuries.
    Surrender in Afghanistan with Afghanistan becoming a safe haven
    for terrorists has opened the borders for every American family
    to be at risk of attack as indicated by the FBI of an imminent
    attack with hundreds of terrorist murderers freely crossing the
    border as I saw 3 years ago at Del Rio, Texas.
        Additionally, and I appreciate very much the Ranking
    Member, there has been an alternative and that is that
    President Donald Trump, the agreements that he reached at Doha
    were conditions-based, and we know General Milley, we know
    General McKenzie were here and indicated that none of the
    conditions were met. It was actually irresponsible of the
    Biden-Harris administration not to see that the conditions were
    not met and so there should have been, as President Donald
    Trump has indicated, that he personally would have left a
    contingent of American military of our NATO military, our 53
    allies that were assisting in the effort, and he would have
    never left Bagram Air Base to be put in a position to benefit
    terrorism worldwide.
        Above all else, it is disappointing the Secretary's
    violation of his oath of office by failing to adhere to the
    Constitution, let alone preservation, protection, and defense
    of our Nation's founding values. And with that, I urge a yes
    vote. I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further
    discussion? Mr. Sherman is recognized.
        Mr. Sherman. I yield to the Ranking Member for a few
    seconds.
        Mr. Meeks. I just want to enter into the record a letter
    that was sent to the chairman from the Secretary on September
    22d, talking about this and his willingness to testify, as well
    as a letter that was sent to the chairman on September 23d,
    where the Department of Justice had concluded that the
    committee may not constitutionally compel the Secretary to
    appear due to--as doing so would prevent the Secretary from
    fulfilling the President's directive to represent the United
    States in a major diplomatic event. I yield to Mr. Sherman.
        Chairman McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Sherman. This is political theater. You know it because
    of when it is happening and you know it because if you are
    watching us here, you are probably watching on Fox New which
    did not cover the hearings of this committee when we dealt with
    Sudan or Ukraine or Tigray, or the budget of the State
    Department. This is political theater.
        The Secretary of State came before this committee just
    months after we withdrew from Afghanistan and answered the
    questions that supposedly we want to ask him again. He was
    succinct. He said we inherited a deadline. We did not inherit a
    plan. And he reminded us that 5,000 of the Taliban's best
    fighters were released during the Trump administration at the
    demand of Donald Trump.
        But why the political theater? It is to hide--and the
    person we should have testifying perhaps is Donald Trump or his
    Secretary of State because we saw the greatest failure in
    recent American foreign policy in Afghanistan under Trump. For
    4 years, we waged war and we accomplished nothing except the
    opportunity to sign a surrender document on his way out the
    door. And Donald Trump knew that the withdrawal would be
    difficult, so he left that for his successor. That surrender
    document puts the Taliban in complete control of Afghanistan,
    had no mechanisms to prevent that.
        Now you can say that at least under Obama, we accomplished
    one thing in Afghanistan. We got Osama bin Laden. What did we
    get out of Trump? We got 4 years of Americans dying and tens of
    billions of dollars of our equipment flowing into Afghanistan
    and then being spread out over a country the size of Texas
    where it could not be recovered.
        But remember this. Thirteen of our soldiers died in the
    withdrawal, but at least we accomplished an incredibly
    difficult withdrawal and got 100,000 others out. What did we
    accomplish from Trump except delaying the surrender from 2017
    to 2020 and during that period 63 Americans died, not to
    accomplish a withdrawal but for nothing. They died for nothing
    under Donald Trump and 57 of those coffins came back to the
    United States without Donald Trump having the guts to be there
    for the dignified return, the dignified transfer. Four years,
    dying, billions of dollars out of our treasury, billions of
    dollars worth of our equipment spread all over a country we are
    not going to control, all to sign the same surrender agreement
    that we could have signed in 2017.
        Now that agreement does provide that the Taliban obligates
    itself not to be a center of terrorism. Well, they are
    obligated to do that anyway. No country in this world is
    allowed to actively participate in killing civilians by the
    thousands in another country. That is an act of war. And oh, by
    the way, even that obligation has no enforcement provisions.
    Four years of dying, 4 years for nothing, 63 of our soldiers
    dead, 57 of them returned without the President being there. No
    apologies to the families, and he got us the same deal that was
    available in 2017. That is why Donald Trump is not here to
    testify about his enormous failure in Afghanistan and that is
    why the majority needs political theater to redirect the
    attention of America. I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. Any further discussion? Mr. Perry is
    recognized.
        Mr. Perry. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I take no joy in listening to my colleagues on the other
    side of the aisle admitting that they always plan to surrender.
    I don't take any joy in that whatsoever, even though they're
    saying it and it is an admission that----
        Mr. Sherman. Will the gentleman yield since he's
    mischaracterizing my----
        Mr. Perry. I will not yield. I will not yield.
        The fact that President Trump didn't surrender, look, I
    don't know how you view that, but I see that as an accolade.
    Yes, it was a difficult situation, but the thought that the
    first thing that America would do would be to surrender is
    abhorrent to me--is abhorrent.
        Now, this event is about the fact that the Secretary
    refuses to appear. That's what this is about. Some of my
    friends on the other side of the aisle will say it's political
    theater, like they've never engaged in any of that, because of
    the timing.
        The chairman has clearly laid out the entreaties in good
    faith that he's made to the Secretary over a long period of
    time. We all know this because we're on this committee. We've
    been informed of this all along. We are at this late hour for
    this event because the Secretary has continuously refused to be
    present. Yes, he's sent other people, other representatives.
    The American people demand the answers from the top, not from
    middle management and people unaccountable.
        Now, Secretary Blinken has lied to the American people in
    fantastic fashion in the past, which is why it's important to
    get him here face-to-face on the record. He lied decidedly and
    intently, purposefully, about the Hunter Biden laptop to ensure
    or to help ensure the election of Joe Biden. He did that; we
    all know that.
        The record is clear and it is why the chairman has demanded
    his presence here in front of the American people in this
    committee to see if he will do that yet again, because not only
    in the balance were the 13 lives unnecessarily lost in the
    final days at Abbey Gate, but it is the credibility of the
    United States of America that has been on the line and has been
    shattered and destroyed by the incompetence of the decisions
    made by this administration, and likely by the Secretary.
        With that in mind, it is not convenience; it is the
    obligation, it is the duty of this committee's requirement/
    responsibility for oversight to have the Secretary here to
    answer these questions on behalf of the American people, and
    certainly on behalf of those who lost their lives and those who
    are still living who have suffered horrific injuries.
        And for those of you who may say, ``Well, he's not, the
    chairman's not authorized to demand the Secretary be here,''
    I'll remind everybody here that this is a duly constituted
    committee with the appropriate number of members from each side
    agreed to and giving this committee the authority and the
    responsibility to request the Secretary's presence.
        This is not a joyful occasion, and certainly hearing my
    friends on the other side of the aisle say that, ``We always
    intended to surrender,'' well, I will tell you Afghanistan,
    Vietnam, Grenada, you name it, Panama, as a person who wore the
    uniform, and as a proud American who holds an American
    passport, I never ever thought that our country would
    surrender--ever.
        And I'll lament that we flippantly say, ``It doesn't matter
    if it was 2017 or 2020, it was always going to happen.'' For
    those who serve in uniform, for those who commit their lives in
    service to this Nation, the offhanded comments about the
    surrender, well, they're beyond the pale to me.
        Mr. Chairman, I'll yield the balance.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
        Mr. Connolly is recognized.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This is not a moment of grace or bipartisanship or dignity
    for a storied committee here in the House of Representatives
    that has prided itself on all of the above.
        At this moment, war rages in the Middle East--in Gaza, in
    Lebanon--where the President and the Secretary of State are
    desperately trying to contain that conflict, lest it expand
    into a regionwide conflict. They continue to make efforts at
    the United Nations, where they are today, and in other locales,
    to achieve a cease-fire to stop the killing and the desolation
    in Gaza and to bring Israeli hostages home, including
    Americans.
        Those are noble efforts that this committee in normal times
    would respect. At the very least, this committee, given the
    urgency of the moment and the engagement of our President and
    Secretary of State in intense diplomatic negotiations and
    discussions, including Ukraine, I might add, at the United
    Nations, would have the respect to allow the President and his
    Secretary of State to undertake those endeavors on the
    country's behalf and to delay any action by this committee that
    could detract or impede those efforts.
        But not today. Today, we're going to engage in a partisan
    exercise because we're 40 days out from an election and we want
    to score political points, including on the subject of
    Afghanistan.
        I find it ironic that the chairman would cite the fact that
    there were so few, if any, hearings on Afghanistan under a
    previous majority--when the Republican majority refused to have
    a single hearing on Russian interference in the 2016 election,
    despite multiple requests to do so, nor have the Republican
    majority currently had any hearings on the antecedent of what
    happened in Kabul.
        Mr. Sherman pointed out it was President Trump and his
    negotiator, Ambassador Khalilzad, that precluded the Afghan
    government from even being at the table in the negotiations in
    Doha. Who were the Afghan representatives that we recognized,
    that the U.S. Government and that President Trump and Mike
    Pompeo, the Secretary of State, recognized? It was the Taliban,
    not the Afghan government. They weren't even allowed to sit at
    the table and participate in the future of their own country.
    Imagine the demoralizing effect that must have had on the
    Afghan government we purportedly supported and the military
    that buttressed it. No wonder it collapsed.
        Imagine the morale effect of agreeing to release 5,000
    Taliban prisoners, many of whom were terrorists, which my
    colleague Joe Wilson correctly cites as of concern, except he
    forgets it was on the Trump administration watch, not the Biden
    administration watch, that saw that egregious action and agreed
    to it as part of a Taliban demand.
        And it was the Trump administration that set an absolute
    date for full U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. That trifecta
    destroyed the credibility of the Afghan government in Kabul we
    were purportedly supporting, energized the Taliban, and
    destroyed the ability of the Afghan military to resist the
    Taliban. And that led to the collapse of Kabul, but, of course,
    we don't want to talk about that and we don't want to have a
    hearing about that because that would damage the narrative that
    we're undertaking today.
        This is, from my point of view, a real shameful moment for
    this committee and I deeply regret that the majority would
    undertake this effort, while the President and Secretary of
    State are negotiating very delicate matters on our behalf and
    on the behalf of world peace.
        I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
        The chair recognizes Mr. Mast.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman.
        I don't have one friend that passed in Afghanistan that
    passed for nothing. They were serving their country and they
    were serving their brothers to their left and right and their
    sisters to their left and right in combat. They were serving
    causes they considered to be bigger and more important than
    themselves.
        I did not lose my legs for nothing in Afghanistan. My
    service was absolutely squandered by what took place with the
    withdrawal from Afghanistan. But somebody would have to be a
    willful idiot to think that my operations in 2010 in
    Afghanistan somehow directly correlated to all the failures
    that took place in August in the withdrawal of Afghanistan. You
    would have to be a willful idiot to think that and you would
    have to think people are idiots in order to go out there and
    present that as an argument.
        We need to look at the whole war. What Brian Mast did in
    2010 in Afghanistan and everybody that was there surrounding
    that, that's what led to what happened with the withdrawal of
    Afghanistan. My colleagues want you to think that that's what
    we need to be looking at. It's just simply not true.
        The fact of the matter is the contempt of Secretary of
    State Antony Blinken exists because he does not put a priority
    on being present for important activities. Where was he during
    this catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan? He was
    vacationing in the Hamptons. That's where he was.
        Where was he when province after province of Afghanistan
    was falling? He was vacationing in the Hamptons. Where was he
    when he should have been looking at what's going to take place
    if all of the individuals in the embassy need to be evacuated?
    What plan are we doing to conduct getting them out of there? He
    was vacationing in Afghanistan--or not in Afghanistan. I wish
    he was in Afghanistan paying attention. He was vacationing in
    the Hamptons.
        What was he doing when people were hanging off the wings of
    aircraft, thinking about how they might get out of Afghanistan?
    He was vacationing in other places like the Hamptons.
        When you look at a situation where it should have been all
    hands on deck, every person spending every minute of the day
    giving every bit of their focus to what would be the largest
    military and State Department operation in decades, and you
    think about the fact that the Secretary of State was on
    vacation, it makes you not wonder as much why what happened
    with the withdrawal happened with the withdrawal.
        I read the testimoneys of person after person, Ambassador
    after Ambassador, that was working in the withdrawal of
    Afghanistan. The fact of the matter is there was, basically, no
    mention at all of the Secretary of State and where he was, as
    the top dog in the State Department, throughout that entire
    withdrawal.
        Nobody spoke about where he was; what he doing to help; how
    he was preventing people from hanging off the wings of
    aircraft; what he was doing to make sure that Special Immigrant
    Visas would have the documentation that we need; that the State
    Department had the appropriate number of people to deal with
    all of the Special Immigrant Visa holders and each of their
    family members, their spouses, their children. He wasn't
    present at all for that.
        And if you want to go one step further and talk about the
    fact that we weren't there for nothing, those of us that served
    there; our service was squandered, but those who were there at
    the time were quite literally treated as disposable
    servicemembers. If the Secretary of State is not present, then
    he's treating those servicemembers that need to come and rescue
    his people as disposable. If he's not calculating what needs to
    take place with the Special Immigrant Visa holders, then he's
    taking those servicemembers that are flying those aircraft and
    they're guarding the walls, he's treating them as disposable.
    If he's not calculating which airport to use, or whether to do
    it in the summer, not in the summer, in the winter, he's
    treating the servicemembers that have to protect that operation
    as disposable.
        He should be held in contempt, and I thank you, Chairman,
    for the time.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
        The chair recognizes Ms. Wild.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have to express my profound disappointment in this
    committee today when we are so often able to work in an
    accommodating and bipartisan manner. Indeed, I have always
    considered this to be one of the more genteel committees in
    Congress.
        Let me be clear. I was vocally and publicly critical of the
    execution of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, but at the same
    time I also was vocal and public about the need to bring this
    endless war to an end--a forever war that had been going on
    since 2, through many presidencies, not just President Biden's.
        The hearing today was convened, I believe, to force
    Secretary Blinken into an untenable position. As we all know
    from his correspondence to the chairman, Secretary Blinken is
    at the U.N. today in New York and for long-ago-scheduled
    meetings, critical meetings, at the U.N. General Assembly that
    are not optional meetings for him. He is our Secretary of State
    and very important matters will be undertaken, and he advised
    the chairman of that in his correspondence and asked for this
    to be rescheduled, and that was not done.
        It's worth pointing out that Secretary Blinken has appeared
    before this committee in the past to testify in response to
    questions about what happened during the withdrawal from
    Afghanistan.
        This is, as has been said by several, a purely political
    move. We are 40-some days before a Presidential election. And
    isn't it shocking that there was no accommodation of Secretary
    Blinken's request that his appearance be rescheduled to some
    date other than when he had to appear at the U.N. General
    Assembly? Of course, it's not a coincidence; it is completely
    political, which is not something that we often see in this
    committee.
        As Secretary Blinken pointed out in his correspondence, his
    Department has balanced more than 50 unique investigatory
    inquiries from eight separate House committees, including more
    than a dozen from this committee. At his direction, the
    Department provided more than 20,000 pages of documents to this
    committee over the course of this single investigation, and
    those documents were provided with minimal redactions.
        And the Department of State, also, under Secretary Blinken,
    took the unprecedented step of allowing committee members from
    this committee to view a highly sensitive cable and provided
    the committee with internal memos related to the Department's
    after-action review.
        Secretary Blinken has been nothing but cooperative
    throughout this entire term in Congress and it shames me that
    our normally very professional and bipartisan committee has
    resorted to a political stunt like this. And I hope that this
    is not a sign of things to come in the coming days. I hope we
    will return to being the committee that we once were.
        But I think it is appalling that a Secretary of State's
    request for an accommodation, when he has appeared many times
    before this committee and other committees in Congress
    specifically related to the Afghanistan war and the withdrawal,
    I think it's appalling that his request was not honored.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
        Because my name was invoked, I do feel compelled to
    respond. I offered any day in September, just a few hours in
    September. The Secretary couldn't find 1 day, couldn't find 1
    hour, to come before the U.S. Congress and respond to our
    report, so we could legislate on that. I find that incredible.
    His timing, not mine, not 1 day to answer to the Gold Star
    families, the veterans, and the American people--not 1 day. To
    me, that is disrespectful to everyone serving on this committee
    and everybody serving in this great institution.
        The chair now recognizes Mr. Baird.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank all of the members and staff for putting together
    this report.
        You know, I would just like to say I want my colleague Mr.
    Mast to know that I appreciate your service and that it was not
    for naught.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you.
        Mr. Baird. I heard the same kind of comment about Vietnam,
    and I can tell you that the soldiers that I served with were
    there to save their country and they served willingly to
    protect the country. And so, it's important to me that people
    understand that.
        But, you know, it's been 3 years since the attack at Abbey
    Gate that left 13 U.S. servicemembers killed because of the
    failed policies of the Biden administration and Secretary
    Blinken. One of those soldiers that was killed, Corporal
    Sanchez, is from Logansport, Indiana, and that's in my
    district. And I can tell you how impactful that was on the
    community and on the family.
        Throughout the committee's entire investigation into the
    withdrawal, Secretary Blinken and the U.S. State Department
    repeatedly obstructed, delayed, and refused to comply with
    legitimate oversight inquiries. The American people still
    deserve answers, especially the servicemembers who served in
    Afghanistan and our Gold Star families.
        Secretary Blinken has violated the committee's subpoena and
    ignored multiple previous requests to testify. Today is yet
    another example of Secretary Blinken's refusal to comply and
    provide answers.
        Instead of providing the committee and our Gold Star
    families answers, Secretary Blinken is hiding in the United
    Nations General Assembly in New York. That's why I'll be voting
    yes on this committee report.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
        The chair recognizes Ms. Titus.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I just have to say: here we go again. The Republicans have
    shown that they can't govern. So, let's find some circus to
    have, some political event, and some sham hearing on censure
    for the Secretary.
        You know, instead of doing that, why don't we work with the
    State Department in order to really get answers to the
    questions that we have, instead of just throwing on these
    accusations and filling up the time with political stunts?
        If you get beyond the bluster, you can look at the facts.
    Secretary Blinken has willingly responded to questions on the
    Afghan withdrawal in 14 public hearings since August 21st--
    August 2021, including four hearings before this very
    committee.
        The State Department has produced 20,000 pages of documents
    to this committee on the withdrawal and made 15 State
    Department witnesses available for individual, full-day,
    transcribed interviews.
        The Secretary also made unprecedented accommodations for
    members of the committee to view a dissent channel cable, in
    compliance with a different subpoena and a separate threat of
    contempt from another committee.
        He has tried to work with the majority to comply with this
    most recent subpoena by offering alternative dates, but that
    was ignored, because we're focusing on policy and not working
    in good faith.
        Now, you heard that he's hiding in New York with the United
    Nations General Assembly. Let's look at what he's really doing
    there. He's representing the United States at the U.N. Security
    Council's debate on the war in Ukraine; publicly engaging with
    Russian and Chinese foreign ministers on this critical topic.
    Surely, we can agree that that's important.
        Alongside President Biden, he's also going to be hosting
    the U.S.-led Global Coalition on Synthetic Drugs to fight the
    production and trafficking of fentanyl, which we have heard ad
    nauseam from the other side about how important it is, but,
    apparently, not so much now.
        He's also going to hold a bilateral meeting with the U.N.
    Secretary General; meet with foreign ministers from Africa on
    China's Belt and Road, which we also hear about constantly, and
    participate in other high-level engagements that have been the
    result of months-long planning.
        The dates for this were announced long ago. So, if this
    were really a good-faith effort to bring the Secretary, it
    would not have been scheduled for today. This is just headline-
    grabbing pontificating, a political circus--I can't think of
    any other word to highlight, once again, a report that's
    already been released--a misleading, partisan report that we
    didn't have any kind of input in; spurious, cherry-picked facts
    to support a manufactured narrative.
        All of this today, why today is this so critical, except
    for the fact that we knew that the Secretary was not going to
    be able to be here? So, it's really there's no smoking gun;
    it's just a lot of blowing smoke.
        Thank you and I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
        I must remind the committee the Secretary was offered any
    day in September, not just today.
        Second, he didn't produce the after-action report or the
    dissent cable until he was threatened with a Motion of
    Contempt, which stalled our investigation to this day. That's
    why we are where we are in September.
        The chair recognizes Mr. Waltz.
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You know, this was our nations longest war ever that I had
    both the honor and the heartbreak of fighting in. And I just
    want to echo Mr. Bairds statements and Masts. Your sacrifices
    were not in vain.
        We have had two generations of Americans that did not
    suffer planes flying into buildings and not suffer suicide
    bombers going off on school buses. That didnt suffer yet
    another 9/11 because of your sacrifices, my friend, and so many
    other soldiers that sacrificed along with you.
        But all those soldiers are asking for, all those veterans
    are asking for, all the Gold Star families are asking for, all
    the Afghans that are still being hunted down and tortured are
    asking for are some answers and some damn accountability.
    Anyone to be fired.
        I mean, that is what the Democrats on the other side of the
    aisle just cant explain is not a single person has even been
    laterally transferred. In fact, they are being promoted. The
    woman in charge of the, coordinating the withdrawal has been
    nominated to be the Ambassador to Iraq.
        So you know what, I dont care, they dont care how many
    times Tony Blinken has to inconvenience himself to come before
    the peoples representatives. I dont care if it is once, twice,
    ten times, 15 times, until we get some answers.
        And you know what, coming in the days after the withdrawal,
    we hadnt had an investigation yet. We didnt even know what to
    ask him.
        But the things that my colleagues also dont want to
    acknowledge is that this report, Willful Blindness, is filled
    full of testimony of Tony Blinkens employees, of State
    Department Foreign Service officers, of military generals who
    testify under oath that time and time again, Blinken; Sullivan,
    the National Security Advisor; Biden; and Harris at the
    National Security Council ignored their advice.
        And this testimony contradicts their public statements. So
    hell yes, he should be sitting right here answering for those
    contradictions and lies. Lets go through a few of them. Lets go
    through just a few.
        Biden and Blinken said they are not going to have people
    lifted off the embassy, of the roof in Saigon. That was a lie,
    and we have testimony in this report that shows that. They were
    repeatedly warned that the Afghan Government was going to
    collapse without our support.
        President Ghani came here in person and told him the
    country was failing. His own diplomats, which we saw in the
    dissent cable that my colleague raised, that we would have
    never had access to but for this investigation, warned the
    Secretary of State in a dissent cable, dozens of diplomats,
    that Afghanistan was going to fall. And yet, we pulled our
    forces out unconditionally regardless.
        Both Biden and Blinken said only 100-200 Americans that
    wanted to leave would be left behind. That was a lie. That
    number was quietly revised in the dead of night to be over five
    times as many. They said we are not going to leave until we get
    every American out. Lie.
        Who was responsible for putting the original withdrawal
    date on the September 11, an insult to the September 11
    families? We still dont know. I would love for him to answer
    that question. So would the American people.
        One or 2 hours is what we are asking for for some level of
    transparency and accountability. Biden and Blinken said our
    allies were completely on board. Lie. The Secretary General,
    our own generals, and our allies repeatedly asked them not to
    do this and not to do it in this way.
        Biden and Blinken, and Harris for that matter, said Al
    Qaeda is gone, nothing to worry about. Lie. Al Qaeda is back,
    ISIS is back. And terrorism is once again bubbling out of
    Afghanistan, but now stronger than ever, to attack the
    homeland. I could go on and on.
        And what my colleagues dont want to admit is they havent
    read this report. This is page after page of State Department
    testimony, general testimony, military testimony that
    contradicts this administration and their public statements.
        And then on Vice President Harris, which was it? Was she a
    wallflower for 4 years in these deliberations? Or was she at
    the table, which is statutorily required of a National Security
    Council?
        I have served inside the White House. The Vice President is
    the first to speak and the last to speak, and she pounded her
    chest, tapped herself on the shoulder proudly. I was the last
    in the room in making these decisions.
        You know what is political? Inaction can be political too.
    And the inaction, Ranking Member Meeks, of this committee in
    the years after the withdrawal is also political. Trying to
    bury this disgrace is also political. Antony Blinken saying,
    well, I will come after the election. That is also political.
        You know what our elections drive? Our elections drive
    accountability. The American people get a vote for this
    disgrace. That is why Blinken isnt here. Because the Harris
    campaign and the Biden administration, as he is trying to take
    a victory lap in New York--I dont know for what, but he is
    certainly trying for some reason--doesnt want this on the
    headlines. They want the American people to forget about it.
        We are not going to let them, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you
    for your work. And the veterans community, the Gold Star
    families, and those of us that served there will never let Tony
    Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris forget this
    disgrace.
        And you know who is not going to let them forget it either,
    Mr. Chairman? Al Qaeda and ISIS and the terrorists that fully
    intend to attack our homeland once again.
        I yield, and I will proudly vote Secretary Blinken in
    contempt.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. The chair recognizes
    Mr. Phillips.
        Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
    yield a minute to begin to the ranking member, Mr. Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. Since my name was invoked, No. 1, incorrectly,
    when we were in charge, we did have hearings in the 117th. We
    had several hearings in the 117th, plus classified hearings,
    extensive classified hearings, where everybody had an
    opportunity.
        The difference is we wasn't playing politics with it. We
    wanted to talk about the 20 years. Everything leads up to one.
    They are interconnected.
        No. 2, the Secretary of State's schedule is public.
    September is a difficult month because of what is going on in
    the world. The 118th Congress, if this is about fact-finding,
    if this about--not about elections, if this is about trying to
    see what we can do to make sure that we don't have a withdrawal
    in other wars like we have in Afghanistan, for the record of
    the American people, the 118th Congress doesn't end until
    December 31.
        This subpoena that was given to the Secretary was only
    issued on September 18th. Everybody knows that the U.N. is in
    session this particular week. The reason why September is
    important? Because it is political, it is the political season.
        It is the election coming up. It is November 5th. That is
    the only reason why it is important. Otherwise, this hearing,
    as the Secretary has been willing to talk, would have continued
    or could happen at his availability. But he gave his schedule
    to the chairman and said this is my schedule. It is a public
    schedule. That is why he is not here, because he is doing his
    responsibility.
        I yield back to Mr. Phillips.
        Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
        I know that Mr. Mast and Mr. Baird have left the room, but
    I wanted to start by thanking them, who have served this
    country and made sacrifices that most of us cant even imagine
    making on behalf of our country. And to all of those on both
    sides of the aisle who have served our country and continue to,
    I just want to say thank you.
        I know a thing or two about this because I am a Gold Star
    son. Gold Star families have been invoked a lot today. And I
    reflect almost every day I serve in this institution about why
    my dad died in Vietnam, what he was fighting for.
        And I try to rationalize and reconcile it for serving his
    country with heroism and honor in a reprehensible, unnecessary,
    and stupid war that was mismanaged from the beginning, during,
    and certainly during the withdrawal.
        So this is not an issue of whether we should investigate
    what happened in Afghanistan. We absolutely should. It is not
    an issue of whether the Secretary of State should appear in
    front of this body. He absolutely should. The question is just
    when. He didnt come in September, and now we are sitting here
    voting on a contempt resolution.
        And that is why I am sad today. I have loved my service in
    this institution, most importantly on this committee, because
    of my friendships on both sides of the aisle. It is one of the
    very few vestiges of decency, collaboration, cooperation, and
    shared principles that remain in the U.S. Congress.
        And I think what is contemptible is that we are doing this
    today. When the rest of the world is watching the United
    Nations gather in New York, our Secretary of State should
    absolutely be there, for goodness sakes.
        And he should also be in front of us. And I just wish that
    we could pursue the spirit of what this country and this
    institution should be about, which is to cooperate.
        So I am not here to say he shouldnt, I am here to say he
    should. The question is when, and I think it should happen
    soon. I think it is despicable and sad that we are doing this
    today.
        I think what also is contemptible is a former President who
    is currently blaming the United States for the war in Ukraine,
    not Mr. Putin. What is contemptible is a former President who
    actually shared with his Secretary of Defense that he thought
    we should shoot American protesters in the streets. That is
    contemptible behavior.
        And I think we are holding the wrong person in contempt
    today, because contempt means a lack of respect or reverence
    for something, and damn, have we lost respect and reverence for
    this institution, for our friendships, for collegiality.
        And that is all I wanted to say today to the American
    public that is once again watching us. Watching us act like
    this is what is contemptible. And I apologize to every single
    one of the 350 or so million Americans that are wondering what
    the heck is going on in this most important institution in the
    world.
        I love my brothers and sisters on this committee, Democrats
    and Republicans. And I love America even more. With that, I
    yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. The chair recognizes
    Mr. Lawler.
        Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It is not political when you have 2,459 U.S. servicemembers
    that were killed. It is not political when 20,769 U.S.
    servicemembers were wounded. It is not political when 18 CIA
    operatives were killed, or 1,822 civilian contractors killed.
        It is not political when over 1,000 Americans were left on
    the ground in Afghanistan. And it is damn well not political
    when 13 U.S. servicemembers died at the bombing at Abbey Gate.
        It is not political to want answers for these families, to
    want answers for the servicemembers, our veterans who continue
    to suffer from PTSD. Twenty-two veteran suicides a day. It is
    not political to want answers for them and their families.
        So to my colleagues on the other side, tell the Gold Star
    families that want answers about this disastrous withdrawal
    from Afghanistan that you believe their request to hold
    Secretary Blinken accountable is political. The service and the
    sacrifice of our soldiers and our veterans matters. And they
    deserve answers.
        And if you want to know what was political, then look no
    further than the actual disastrous withdrawal. Joe Biden and
    Kamala Harris announced a date certain to ensure that all U.S.
    troops were out of Afghanistan before September 11, 2021,
    conditions on the ground be damned.
        Joe Biden wanted to say that he ended the war before the
    20th anniversary. If that isnt political, then what the hell
    is?
        Antony Blinken has refused to cooperate with this
    committee, refused to testify before this committee on the
    withdrawal in the 118th Congress. He has been here twice to
    testify about the State Departments budget. But he certainly
    has not afforded this committee the respect to answer the
    questions related to the disastrous decision to withdraw in
    violation of the Doha Agreement, not because of the Doha
    Agreement.
        This administration chose politics over the safety and
    well-being of our U.S. servicemembers. They chose politics over
    the safety and the well-being of the Americans that were left
    in Afghanistan. They chose politics over the safety and well-
    being of the Afghan refugees who helped us over the course of
    this 20-year war.
        Secretary Blinken has a responsibility to come before this
    committee, to come before the representatives of the American
    people and answer the questions about this disastrous decision
    to withdraw.
        Kamala Harris, who said she was the last person in the
    room, proudly, still has not met with the 13 Gold Star
    families, still has not offered her personal condolences to
    those families. She wasnt at the dignified transfer when Joe
    Biden was looking at his watch, trying to get out of there as
    fast as he could.
        This administrations handling of the withdrawal in
    Afghanistan has created a tinderbox around the world. We are in
    the most precarious place since World War II because of their
    disastrous foreign policy, starting with this withdraw,
    continuing with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the terrorist
    attack on Israel, the illicit oil trade between Iran and China,
    the threats in the Indo-Pacific from China against Taiwan, and
    in their botched mishandling of the border. This administration
    is a disgrace.
        And the fact that Secretary Blinken couldnt be bothered to
    be here, not just today, but over the course of this entire
    118th Congress, to answer questions on this matter. It matters
    to these families, it matters to the American people. And it
    damn well matters to our active duty military and our veterans.
        The only thing political here was the decision to withdraw
    by a date certain in violation of the Doha Agreement. That is
    the only thing that is political. And the fact that my
    colleagues cant accept that but would rather carry water for
    the Secretary of State is an absolute abomination.
        I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentlemans time has expired. The chair
    recognizes Ms. Dean.
        Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
    Member Meeks.
        I rise in opposition to this committee report seeking to
    hold Secretary Blinken in contempt. What a sad waste of time at
    such a serious and dangerous moment around the world. This is
    simply another attempt by the majority to wield the power of
    this committee to score cheap political points.
        This action is nothing more than an extension of their
    highly partisan, cherry-picked report on the Afghanistan
    withdrawal. As soon as you hit any real substance in the
    majoritys report on the withdrawal, just beyond the table of
    contents and the list of key people, and the grainy pictures
    that flower this report, you will find its first fundamental
    flaw. And again, I am talking about the majoritys Afghanistan
    withdrawal report.
        On page 8, let me show it to you, right here. On page 8,
    This report presents the finding of the committees majority
    investigation into the Biden-Harris administration withdrawal
    from Afghanistan in 2021.
        The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan is understood to
    encompass--note the limitations here--the U.S. military
    retrograde beginning with go to zero order officially announced
    by President Biden on April 14, 2021, through the noncombatant
    evacuation operation ordered by President Biden August 15,
    2021.
        The Afghan withdrawal studied in a prism of 4 months. No
    way did they want to go back and look at what Mr. Trump might
    have done to set this in motion. They didnt want to examine
    that.
        It is obvious the majoritys report was developed from a
    predetermined political conclusion in this political season,
    one which shields the action of Trump, of the Trump
    administration, from criticism and places all blame on the
    Biden administration. With the hearing at issue, this is the
    piece de resistance.
        I want to read to you what John Bolton and H.R. McMaster,
    two former Trump National Security Advisors known for their
    hawkish views lambasting both Trump and Biden for the
    withdrawal, though they have been very critical of the Taliban
    agreement. This is McMaster: Our Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
    signed a surrender agreement with the Taliban. McMaster said,
    It was a surrender agreement by the Trump Administration.
        Nowhere do we really see much of anything about what Mr.
    Trump did. If you take a look at the total report, the report
    includes only half a page of an executive summary and about
    eight pages of background. Out of a total of 345 pages of this
    report directly focus on the Trump administration, eight pages
    of the whole report.
        On page 41, The first step toward a phased withdrawal
    resulted in the reduction of U.S. forces to 8600. That drawdown
    was completed by the summer of 2020. 2020, election year, shows
    the withdrawal actually started under the Trump administration.
        And this, the most puzzling of facts, not really examined
    at all by this committee because they don't want to look at
    what Mr. Trump did, in July. Additionally, in July 2020,
    President Trump pursued another phased drawdown, reducing
    troops to 4500 and then in January, just before Mr. Biden was
    sworn into office, they reduced by another 2500 troops.
        Nobody wants to examine that on the other side of the
    aisle? You dont want to see what weakness that created? What
    opportunity that created for the Taliban?
        By way of Secretary Blinken, he has come before this
    congressional committee to provide testimony on numerous
    occasions, including multiple times before this very committee.
    And the State Department has provided 20,000 pages of documents
    at his direction.
        Despite the continued attacks by the majority, the
    Secretary remains willing to come to this committee, as he
    wrote in a letter just yesterday, the second letter. I think it
    has been entered into the record. We have consulted with the
    Department of Justice and it has concluded the committee may
    not constitutionally compel the Secretary appear on September
    24, as so doing would prevent the Secretary from fulfilling the
    Presidents directive to represent the United States at the U.N.
        We dont even have the constitutional authority to do this.
    I submit that for the record.
        So finally, I think no matter what we are saying here, this
    rush to subpoena and then this rush to this resolution
    condemning the Secretary, where we were when Mr. McCarthy and
    four other GOP leaders were issued subpoenas by the January 6
    Committee? It was Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Jordan, Scott Perry of this
    very committee, Andy Biggs, Mo Brooks. Where was our outrage
    then when they failed to appear for their subpoenas?
        This is a political stunt. It is dangerous, it is sad, it
    is nakedly an attempt at politics. And I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields. I would like to
    State our General Counsel stated that the DOJ does not decide
    what is constitutional, the judicial branch does. I would argue
    as an attorney we have Article 1 Constitutional authority to
    conduct these hearings, to compel witnesses, including the
    Secretary of State. He cannot hide behind his title.
        The chair now recognizes Mr. Mills.
        Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will ignore the fact
    that you almost forgot my name.
        I want to put some corrections to the record here. First,
    you know, I want to remind the ranking member that utilized the
    term that it is rarely used and shamefully a political stunt
    when talking when talking about contempt. But I wonder if that
    was a rarely used and shameful political stunt whenever they
    were willing to hold in contempt Dan Scovino, Steve Bannon,
    Mark Meadows, Peter Navarro, and the list goes on and on.
        So it is not as rarely used as they may say. And I want to
    also say where is the rush, as some of my colleagues have said.
    The rush is is that on August 26 of 2021, 13 brave heroes lost
    their lives, and 13 Gold Star families are still living with
    those consequences. That was political optics over military
    strategy and advisory by the generals and even by Secretary
    Blinkens own officials.
        Twenty-three diplomats in the dissent cable that we had to
    subpoena and nearly hold him in contempt for redacting all the
    information warned the Secretary that if he goes forward with
    this strategy, that Americans will be left behind, allies will
    be left behind, and Americans will lose their lives.
        The same way that as myself, I am a member of the Armed
    Services Committee, reviewed the daily intel brief as the
    Secretary of Defense got that gave a continual path from the
    individual movement of provinces to the planning, all the way
    down to the date where, on August 25, the intel report stated
    clearly, all plans have been made and execution is imminent.
        That imminence was the following day on August 26. And I
    will tell you that if the Gold Star mother of Staff Sergeant
    Ryan Knauss, a fellow paratrooper out of the 82d Airborne
    Division, can make her time to be here in the back of this room
    today, then it is shameful that one of the people responsible
    for this botched withdrawal cant make the time throughout the
    entire month of September.
        But what does Secretary Blinken have time for? Well, we
    have seen him make time to play guitar and sing karaoke in
    downtown bars of Kyiv. We heard my colleague Brian Mast talk
    about all the vacationing in the Hamptons. But who has been
    held accountable, who has lost their command, been demoted,
    lost their jobs? The answer is no one.
        And the key of why we wanted to have this hearing, and that
    the chairman had asked for any day in a month of September, is
    because we had finally finished the documentation that shows in
    the report of the negligence that occurred.
        You know, we keep hearing about the Doha Agreement, an
    agreement that President Trump and Secretary of State had put
    together, which was a conditions-based agreement. But what they
    dont want to mention on the other side is that when the
    generals had gone to the President said that we should not have
    a full withdrawal of troops, that he had agreed to this policy.
        Now, you will hear the Biden-Harris administration say that
    they couldnt do anything about it, the agreement had been
    struck. Well, wasnt the agreement struck on the remain in
    Mexico policy to secure our borders? Wasnt the agreement struck
    on the listing of Houthi rebels as a terrorist designation that
    they delisted? Wasnt the policy struck to ensure sanctions
    against Iran when it came to their oil exportation to China,
    which is now funding incidents like what took place on October
    7 in Israel?
        Let me be clear: we should commend the brave men and women
    who have been willing to not only wear that uniform in our
    armed services, but our diplomats, our agents, and our allies
    who fought alongside us for 20-plus years in Americas longest
    war. I want you to all know that you should hold your head up
    proudly. And that it was the suits of D.C., not the boots of
    Afghanistan, who resulted in these failures.
        I also want to acknowledge Congressman Masts sacrifice, but
    also the sacrifice of so many heroes. And I want to recognize
    one of my colleagues, my fellow Floridian Ms. Anna Paulina
    Lunas husband, Andy, who is a proud Purple Heart, Bronze Star
    recipient for the war in Afghanistan.
        I will agree with my colleagues that this is about the last
    20-plus years. That we shouldnt involve ourselves in these
    endless wars that have no clear objective to finish and where
    we think that it is our job to bring diplomacy to a nation
    which is troubled.
        I think that we should learn from the mistakes made here.
    And as someone who is the only member in this body and
    institution who went abroad to conduct the first successful
    rescue of Americans, a mother and three children left behind in
    Afghanistan, I am yet to have the time to ask Antony Blinken
    any questions, because the times that he has showed up here he
    has a hard stop time and doesnt allow this committee to even
    ask all the questions that are necessary.
        So I support this contempt. And in the event that we find
    that this is not possible, then we should be looking at
    inherent contempt of Antony Blinken. It is for that purpose
    that I ask all my colleagues to please vote in support of this,
    and lets get accountability once and for all for D.C. and for
    the American people.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. The chair recognizes
    Mr. Moskowitz.
        Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think two things
    can be true simultaneously, and I have said this before. I
    think there were mistakes made in the Afghanistan withdrawal. I
    do. And I think we should get to the bottom of those mistakes,
    intelligence failures, because the whole idea is to make sure
    that they never happen again. You never want to be a general
    fighting the last war. You want to know what went wrong so that
    you don't repeat them.
        And I am grateful and the country is grateful for Brian
    Mast's sacrifice and I am grateful to my fellow Floridians:
    Cory Mills, Tim Walz, Anna Paulina Luna, who all served in
    different capacities in the military.
        But think two things can be true. And here is the second
    thing that I think is true: The second thing that is true is
    that I don't question my colleagues intent and I don't question
    the chairman's intent, but perception, the perception, which
    you don't control and I don't control, is that you are doing
    this 42 days before an election. Not 6 months ago. Not 6 months
    ago. Not a year ago.
        I think what went on in Afghanistan is one of the most
    important things that we could find out to make sure it doesn't
    happen again. So then you know what, tell the speaker to not--
    to cancel recess. Let's have more hearings on Afghanistan. Why
    haven't we had more hearings on Afghanistan? This Congress has
    had more hearings on gas stoves and refrigerators and ceiling
    fans and blenders than they have had on Afghanistan. And that
    is not the chairman's fault. But that is this Congress.
        Let me tell you what this Congress has spent their time on.
    We have removed the speaker, we have--which had never happened
    in American history. We have impeached the cabinet secretary.
    Hadn't happened in 150 years. We tried to remove another
    speaker. That failed. We have held the Attorney General in
    contempt. And now we want to hold the Secretary of State in
    contempt.
        But what about solving the actual problems that happened in
    Afghanistan? We owe that to the Gold Star families. We
    absolutely owed that to the Gold Star families. But we are
    doing it 42 days before the election all of a sudden? And
    again, I don't question the chairman's intent. The chairman I
    think on Ukraine and Israel has been a voice of reason in his
    party in this Congress, but he can't control the perception and
    I can't control it either.
        And people are going to ask themselves--we are leaving here
    tomorrow. Tomorrow. We are going to pass the CR and go home.
    And we are having this hearing today. So the story that is
    going to be told is as Congress goes out the door, leaves for a
    5-week recess, they want to hold the Secretary of State in
    contempt.
        I don't know what that does for the Gold Star families.
    Does that make them feel better? No, making sure there aren't
    more Gold Star families is what we should be doing, making sure
    the mistakes that were made--making sure those don't repeat
    themselves. But this doesn't do that at all.
        Six months ago we could have done that. Eight months ago we
    could have done that. We could have been doing this quite
    frankly biweekly, having hearings on Afghanistan. But that is
    not what the 118th Congress has focused on. It hasn't focused
    on that.
        And so, I hope for the sake of our military families and
    for the next conflict that we are unaware of that we do get to
    the failures in Afghanistan and make sure that something like
    that doesn't happen again. But this isn't it. This isn't it.
    This is what the American people question about Congress. It is
    why we have a 17 percent approval rating, which by the way,
    there is room to grow. Lots.
        But they are going to ask that question. They are going to
    ask all of a sudden, 24 hours before you leave for a 5-week
    break--look, I will stay if we want to have more hearing on
    Afghanistan. It is more important than my reelection, quite
    frankly. So if we want to do that, I will stay. I will do that.
    But we are not going to do that. We are going to go home. And
    then we are going to come back in a lame duck session, right?
    We are going to leave the 118th Congress probably never getting
    to the bottom of all this.
        And so I think that is disappointing, but I commit myself
    to work with my colleagues across the aisle to find out what
    happened in Afghanistan, right? But my colleagues should be
    aware whether they are--it is their intent or not, it is 42
    days before the election. It is a day before we are leaving.
    And that is how this will get framed. You can't control that.
    That is how this will get framed even if it wasn't your intent.
    And people will ask, well, if it was so serious, why didn't we
    do this 6 months ago?
        I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
        The chair recognizes Mr. McCormick.
        Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. When we talk about
    timing, you are right is kind of inconvenient timing that we
    waited 3+ years to secure the border. It is a matter of timing
    that we decided to prosecute the former President of the United
    States to coincide with an election cycle. It is a matter of
    timing that all of a sudden after 3+ years of anti-pro-energy
    policy we decided that we all of a sudden we are going to be
    for fracking. Imagine the timing. We keep on talking about
    being inconvenient for an election cycle.
        I was in Afghanistan in 2016 as the head of emergency
    medicine at a Role 3 hospital in Kandahar, Afghanistan. During
    the entire 4 years a President Trump's presidency we lost
    approximately 45 people. Horrible losses.
        Let's talk about the entire Afghanistan conflict, if you
    will. Twenty years of investment, $2 trillion, 2,462 lives
    lost, countless limbs, countless traumatic brain injuries, and
    countless months and years away from our families to serve this
    great country. And what do we have to show for it?
        Let's talk about the facts. Let's talk about where we are
    at the conclusion. Not the beginning, but the conclusion of
    this investigation. Fact: Nobody but the Commander in Chief can
    make this decision on how and when to withdraw. That is one
    person's decision executed by everybody else. That was
    President Joe Biden.
        Fact: Kamala Harris admits to being the last person in the
    room, shaking her head in agreement, with how and when this
    withdrawal was bungled.
        The committee reviewed two letters in the past 3 days from
    the Secretary. It laid out a number of excuses why Secretary
    Blinken is unavailable to testify before this committee to the
    American people.
        Let me address a few things: First, the Secretary claims he
    is constitutionally mandated to be in New York to attend to
    America's foreign policy with the United Nations. I get it.
    First, according to the public schedule, which was only made
    public last night, his first official engagement is not until
    1:30 p.m. today. There are over Senate-confirmed or senior
    officials from the State Department in New York for the United
    Nations Assembly.
        Based on the events of the Secretary's calendar today, I
    see no reason why those individuals could not handle his
    engagements there today. Not explained in this letter.
    Apparently he is willing to delegate certainly responsibility
    to his deputies, but only those responsibilities that he has to
    the U.S. Congress. Congress. The people who represent the
    citizens of the United States of America. We, the people. Not
    only is his offer unacceptable; the deputies he offered were
    not even serving in the State Department during the Afghan
    withdrawal.
        Second, the letter transmitted last night declares
    apparently on his behalf to the entire DOJ that the DOJ has
    decided that holding the Secretary in contempt for failure to
    comply with a subpoena is, quote/unquote, ``unconstitutional.''
    I guess the State Department has forgotten about the entire
    branch of government, the Judicial Branch, which actually
    evaluates what constitutional even means.
        Third, a pattern is emerging. When Kabul fell, the
    Secretary was where? East Hampton. In New York. It seems like
    New York seems to be his escape whenever something big happens
    and he has to shirk from his responsibilities.
        Last, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle accuse
    us of playing politics, that this timing is inconvenient.
    Chairman McCaul has made clear that it was our timeline--their
    timeline, not ours. But let me also pose this to the American
    people: Why do you think the Biden/Harris Administration and
    Secretary Blinken are allegedly unavailable until November? Why
    do you think the Secretary will not answer our questions on
    record before the American people at the conclusion of our
    investigation? Mr. Blinken's absence is either willful neglect
    or cowardice. I will absolutely comply and supply--completely
    support holding Secretary Blinken in contempt of Congress. And
    with that, I yield.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
        The chair recognizes Ms. Kamlager-Dove.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we can all
    agree that this committee has a responsibility to conduct
    thorough oversight of the war in Afghanistan. We should also
    agree that what is disrespectful to veterans, soldiers, and
    Gold Star families is to call those who made the ultimate
    sacrifice losers or suckers. Gold Star families of those 13
    heroes who lost their lives in Afghanistan heard those words
    from Trump, not Blinken. It is unfortunate that this oversight
    mandate has been weaponized against good-faith efforts by
    Secretary Blinken to work closely with Congress and provide the
    information requested.
        Committee time and resources are being used to divert State
    Department time and resources from the actual emergencies that
    require the Department's attention: ending the war in Sudan,
    defeating Putin in Ukraine, securing a hostage return and
    cease-fire deal in Gaza, extremism and terrorism in the Sahel,
    Mpox and war outbreak in the DRC, PRC incursions around Taiwan,
    supporting democracy in Venezuela, escalations in Lebanon. I
    can go on. These are just some, not all of the pressing foreign
    policy priorities that this contempt resolution is impeding.
        Secretary Blinken is in New York at UNGA today where all of
    these issues are being discussed right now. Perhaps one of the
    most important UNGA gatherings given the plethora of global
    crises. This is diplomacy at the highest most critical level.
        And this is not the only time that the majority in Congress
    has endangered our national security. My Republican colleagues
    held up funds to Haiti, delayed a desperately needed
    supplemental to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan for 6 months,
    refused to invite the Kenyan president to address a joint
    session of Congress, and stalled important military nominations
    in the Senate. No wonder Blinken is in New York working so hard
    on diplomacy. Because we are not finding it here.
        And I just want to take a moment to set the record straight
    about the Trump and Biden record on SIVs. Finding 13 of the
    non-partisan, highly credible State Department after action
    review notes that at the time the Trump Administration signed
    the agreement with the Taliban in February 2020 there was a
    significant backlog in the Afghan SIV process. That
    administration made no senior-level or inter-agency effort to
    address the backlog or consider options for other at-risk
    Afghans despite its commitment to a military withdrawal.
        Multiple witnesses in the majority's Afghanistan
    investigation testified that President Biden and Secretary
    Blinken subsequently plussed up the resources and personnel
    dedicated to helping process SIVs significantly reducing the
    backlog and speeding up processing times. So let's just make
    sure that is on the record.
        I just have to say that I oppose what is going on here. It
    is political theater at the highest, or lowest, depending on
    how you want to gauge. And I urge my colleagues to do the same.
    Thank you. And I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
        The chair recognizes Mr. Self.
        Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of things
    about what I have heard this morning.
        One of my colleagues across the aisle said this is a rush.
    I believe that it is a rush for the administration, the FCC, to
    approve the purchase by George Soros of more than 200 radio
    stations that reach 165 million Americans 50 days ahead of the
    election.
        One of my colleagues across the aisle talked about 42 days
    before the election. How about 50 for 200 radio stations?
        Across the aisle my colleagues want to focus on the time
    before Abbey Gate. You need to focus on the weakness that was
    demonstrated to the world after Abbey Gate and at Abbey Gate.
    That is the point of this investigation. We are paying the
    price. We will continue to pay the price for that decision.
        Across the aisle they talk about we are wielding our power
    in this committee. Frankly, I am glad somebody in the
    government is wielding their power on this issue because the
    administration not only doesn't use power, they don't seem to
    understand power. We sit in this committee and when we do have
    State Department bureaucrats who deign to show up, they talk a
    lot about soft power while our adversaries around the world are
    using hard power.
        And let's talk about New York today. I think we need to
    watch it closely. They may be censuring Israel again in New
    York today. Seems to be a common practice in New York.
        Mr. Chairman, I recommend the use of inherent contempt
    because I have absolutely no doubt that the DOJ will follow the
    Senate's precedent of not even holding a trial. So I think we
    need to move beyond this fairly quickly to inherent contempt
    and I recommend the use of it. And I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
        The chair recognizes Mr. Amo.
        Mr. Amo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Right now we should be
    mourning the 13 service members who lost their lives in
    Afghanistan. We should be putting country over party to come to
    a bipartisan understanding of the full picture of what went
    wrong. And we should be locking arms to make sure that a
    withdrawal like this never happens again.
        But instead my friends on the other side of the aisle have
    devolved this investigation into a partisan food fight complete
    with spaghetti thrown at the wall in the hopes that it sticks.
        Take the report that is in front of us today. We are only
    debating it today because Republicans want to force Secretary
    Blinken to pause his essential work around the world with our
    allies to testify yet again. Let's be clear: Secretary Blinken
    is not the one obstructing this investigation. How can he be?
    He has already testified 14 times before Congress on the
    Afghanistan withdrawal, 4 of those times in front of this very
    committee.
        If Republicans are searching for those responsible for
    impeding this investigation, there is in fact a mirror in the
    bathroom. By insisting on making this investigation the latest
    culture war avenue to bash President Biden they have prevented
    us from carrying out a thorough investigation.
        If Republicans really cared about the truth, then they
    would look at the full withdrawal from Afghanistan. They would
    not start when President Biden lawfully took office on January
    20, 2021.
        There is an embarrassing lack of investigative rigor that
    is deeply concerning. Throughout their report Republicans
    revealed clear gaps in information that could have been
    answered by looking into what happened before President Biden
    took office.
        Take page 8 of this report. Page 8 acknowledges that the
    Taliban did not comply with the Doha Agreement since the
    beginning of the deal when President Trump was in office. Why
    did Donald Trump fail to hold the Taliban accountable in the
    first year of the agreement? Why did he instead draw down
    troops and leave us in a weakened State during the final stages
    of the withdrawal?
        Page 13 of this report mentions the large backlog of
    special immigrant visas for our Afghan allies. The State
    Department found that the Trump Administration, quote, ``made
    no senior-level or inter-agency effort to address the backlog,
    or consider options for other at-risk Afghans despite its
    commitment to a military withdrawal,'' unquote.
        Why did Donald Trump worse this backlog in the first place
    by not prioritizing those visas, leaving those who helped our
    troops withering in the wind?
        These are just two of the many examples of how the report
    willingly turns a blind eye to reality.
        And it is a damn shame that Republicans would rather attack
    President Biden before confiding, much less acknowledging that
    Donald Trump bears an iota of responsibility for what happened.
    This is not a complete investigation. This is a sham.
        If the other side was serious about finding the truth, then
    we wouldn't be debating this bogus report today. Instead, we
    would be thanking our diplomats who swear the same oath to the
    Constitution that we do, patriots who go to work every day--
    every single day focused on protecting and defending the
    Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. They represent
    the best of our Nation. And with that I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
        There being no further discussion of the report, the
    committee will move to consideration of amendments. Does any
    member wish to offer an amendment?
        Mr. Meeks. I have an amendment at the desk.
        [The amendment offered by Mr. Meeks follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3405.004

        Chairman McCaul. The ranking member is recognized.
        The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
        The clerk shall report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment No. 1 to the committee report
    recommending the House of Representatives find Antony Blinken,
    Secretary, U.S. Department of State, in contempt of Congress
    for refusal to comply with a subpoena.
        Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
    amendment is dispensed with.
        The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Meeks. Mr. Chairman, you have received in writing the
    Secretary's position that he is willing to testify before our
    committee again and the explanation for why he could not do so
    today.
        My amendment incorporates some relevant language from the
    Secretary's written communications to you so that committee
    report includes important details to complete the record about
    his willingness to comply with your subpoena.
        Let me also just add that--to complete the record and me
    going back and forth--that the report was a majority committee
    report. It wasn't bipartisan. That is for sure. No input was
    asked for from this side of the aisle. The report was only
    given to us the night before it was published. No input on
    witnesses. Didn't release the transcripts until such time that
    we requested it at a hearing, and therefore was not something
    that was really seeking the truth and trying to make sure that
    we learned something to give to the Gold Star families or
    anyone else. It was a partisan report.
        And so I have brought on this amendment so that we could be
    sure that it is--the record is clear on that. And we have to
    summarize what the majority's report was and think that those
    findings should be included therein in this record. And with
    that, I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
        Let me say I oppose this amendment. I have allowed these
    letters to be entered into the record, but they do not belong
    in this contempt report. The quote ``reasonable alternatives,''
    end quote, Secretary Blinken references in the September 22 and
    23 letter are already addressed in the contempt report. There
    is no reasonable alternatives suggested to the date I set for
    the hearing. In fact, when I was told the Department in an--I
    was told--when I told the Department in advance that we
    intended to set September 24 as the date, I never heard back
    from the State Department.
        And the alternative he did offer was testimony from his
    subordinates who did not even serve at the State Department
    during the withdrawal. I repeatedly asked the Secretary to
    select any date in the entire month of September and he
    refused. It is not a reasonable accommodation. These are not
    reasonable alternatives, and Secretary Blinken cannot keep
    hiding behind them. For that reason I oppose.
        Any other members seek recognition? Mr. Wilson?
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And indeed, my
    appreciation of service in Afghanistan is very personal and
    that I am so grateful that American and allied troops have
    successfully protected the entire world for 20 years from
    terrorist attacks.
        But sadly due to the failure of the Biden-Harris
    Administration we now have seen the establishment of a safe
    haven for terrorists. We see the persecution of women. I will
    never get over again the situation of mothers providing their
    babies--passing over at Abbey Gate their babies, giving their
    babies away so that they could be free, and not live in
    subjugation and live in a terrorist regime.
        But also I saw firsthand over and over again, visiting my
    former National Guard unit, the 218th Mechanized Infantry
    Brigade, commanded by General Robert Livingston of the South
    Carolina Army National Guard--and our Guard members were so
    grateful to be serving with their Afghan brothers. And the
    thought that the Biden-Harris Administration would abandon the
    Afghan brother, their families, putting them obviously at
    mortal risk--and we see today again the women being subjugated
    and persecuted, which we knew would occur if there was an
    abandonment of the people of Afghanistan.
        And then equally personal--and I am so very grateful, and I
    give all credit to my wife Roxanne--and that is that our
    youngest son First Lieutenant Hunter Wilson, South Carolina
    Army National Guard, served as an engineer for a year in
    Afghanistan. We were so proud and still are of his service for
    the people of America, for the people of Afghanistan for
    freedom and democracy.
        And I think it should be really clear that what was
    negotiated by President Donald Trump, additionally with
    Secretary of State Mike Pompeo--there were conditions. And the
    conditions, as we found out right here with General Milley and
    General McKenzie--the first time I ever heard a clarification--
    the conditions were not met.
        And then I am very grateful that I have had the opportunity
    a number of times this year to be in the presence of President
    Donald Trump and publicly/privately at different meetings,
    receptions I have been to, at different rallies I have been to.
    He has made it very clear that the conditions of the Doha
    Agreement were not met and that he would have established the
    principle that--recognizing that American troops would have
    stayed. He would have worked with our allies.
        I am very grateful to be chairman of the Helsinki
    Commission and an associate member of the NATO Parliamentary
    Assembly. Our allies were shocked that we left Americans
    behind, left persons behind. And the date set for withdrawal
    was not written in stone at all. It was conditions-based.
    General Milley said that. General McKenzie said that. Every bit
    of evidence has been for that.
        And then I on August 26, 2021, actually sent a letter to
    President Biden. In his withdrawal speech, surrender speech he
    said that he had letters from the military supporting his
    position. I have sent request letters over and over again to
    President Biden to ask for the letters that he said he had. He
    did not have letters. We know he did not have letters. And that
    is why there has not been a response. And the consequence again
    is the immediate death of 13 dear Americans at Abbey Gate.
        And then this year--it doesn't get the proper recognition,
    but the failures of this administration--there were three
    members of the Georgia Army Reserve who were killed on January
    28 . And dozens of Reservists suffering traumatic brain injury
    due to the weakness of this administration.
        And so this needs to be heard. And as we talk about the
    political timing of this, yes, it is by the Blinken and Biden
    and Harris Administration. This was requested in May, May 22.
    This could have been long ago. But this administration has
    stonewalled. They have slow-walked, just as they provide slow-
    walking of equipment to our allies in Ukraine, slow-walk to our
    allies of Israel, even deny and slow-walk the efforts that we
    should be making to prevent a war in the Middle East--excuse
    me, in the Far East with our allies of Taiwan, over and over
    again.
        We need to recognize--and I would urge that this amendment
    be defeated. It is really not accurate. It is not accurate by
    Blinken, it is not accurate by sadly the President of the
    United States. And with that, I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
        Any other members seek recognition?
        Mr. Phillips?
        Mr. Phillips. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like
    to yield my time to the ranking member, Mr. Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. In seeking to clarify for the record I want to
    go back to my first amendment, which we--I talked about the
    second amendment. I want to go off my first amendment first.
        And so on the first amendment, Mr. Chairman, many of us on
    the Democratic side of the aisle have been concerned about the
    narrow partisan approach taken to the committee's investigation
    into the Afghanistan withdrawal. This includes the majority's
    report released earlier this month which did not seek to
    incorporate minority input and twisted cherry-picked facts and
    to conclusions not supported by a fuller read of the testimony.
    And of course the contempt report today frequently references
    and cites the majority report.
        My amendment simply added a reference to the minority staff
    memorandum I directed to be prepared and transmitted to flesh
    out the full picture of facts and broadly summarizes is
    findings. With that, I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Does any other
    member seek recognition?
        There being no further discussion, question now occurs on
    the amendment offered by Representative Meeks.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        Mr. Meeks. I request a recorded vote.
        Chairman McCaul. And all those opposed, signify by saying
    no.
        In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The
    amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Meeks. I request a recorded votes.
        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. Meeks. Amendment----
        Chairman McCaul. Mr. Meeks is recognized.
        Mr. Meeks. Mr. Chairman, you have received in writing the
    Secretary's position that he's willing to testify before our
    committee.
        Chairman McCaul. Clerk shall distribute the amendment.
        Mr. Meeks. Oh, sorry.
        Chairman McCaul. It's all right. Clerk shall report the
    amendment.
        [The Amendment offered by Mr. Meeks follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3405.005

        The Clerk. Amendment No. 2 to the committee report
    recommending the House of Representatives find Antony Blinken,
    Secretary, U.S. Department of State, in contempt of Congress
    for the refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the
    Committee on Foreign Affairs.
        Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the
    amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Meeks. Mr. Chairman, you received in writing the
    Secretary's position that he's willing to testify before our
    committee again and the explanation for why he cannot do so
    today. My amendment incorporates some relevant language from
    the Secretary's written communications to you so that the
    committee report includes important details to complete the
    record about his willingness to comply with your subpoena. With
    that, I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. All right. The gentleman yields back. I
    oppose this amendment and I've already stated my reasons why.
    So any other members seek recognition?
        There being no further discussion, question now occurs on
    the amendment offered by Representative Meeks No. 2.
        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. Meeks. Then I ask for a roll call vote.
        Chairman McCaul. Roll call vote has been requested.
    Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will
    be postponed. Any further amendments? Pursuant to notice, I now
    call up H.R. 8683 to require the Secretary of Defense and
    Secretary of State to monitor efforts by the People's Republic
    of China to build or buy strategic foreign ports and for other
    purposes. The bill was circulated in advance. The clerk shall
    designated the bill.
        [The Bill H.R. 8683 follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Clerk. H.R. 8683 to require the Secretary of Defense
    and the Secretary of State to monitor efforts by the People's
    Republic of China----
        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. Huizenga is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Huizenga. Mr. Chairman, yes, I have an amendment at the
    desk.
        Chairman McCaul. Is there any further discussion? Mr.
    Huizenga is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Huizenga. Mr. Chairman, China's malign influence abroad
    continues to reach new corners of the global economy. Emerging
    from the Belt and Road Initiative, Chinese President Xi Jinping
    has created a companion initiative known as the Maritime Silk
    Road, ratifying a dominating stake in various countries by
    making critical investments in strategic ports, some of which
    exist right here near our home. Once more, the likelihood of
    the PRC leveraging its port infrastructure in the future to
    affect the flow of goods globally remains a significant
    challenge for the United States and our allies.
        While many of these investments are portrayed as commercial
    relationships, the PRC's goal is to reach--I'm sorry, the PRC's
    global reach is cause for concern as many of these ports pose
    significant dual use military risk as well. The fact remains
    the Chinese investments in strategic ports offer the CCP a
    launching pad to engage in a campaign of modern day espionage.
    Right here in the Western Hemisphere, the PRC is nearing
    completion of the gateway from South America to Asia in
    Chancay, Peru.
        This is a 3.6 billion dollar deep water megaport which is
    owned by the Chinese State entity known as COSCO, C-O-S-C-O,
    Shipping which has ties to the People's Liberation Army. Once
    finished, goods could travel from Chancay to Shanghai in less
    than 3 weeks, significantly reducing travel time and creating a
    significant opportunity for the PRC to expand its market
    presence. Additionally, China manages ports at both ends of the
    Panama Canal where the CCP coordinates private companies in
    pursuit of its Communist agenda, intending to garner more
    political influence in volatile region.
        Here in the United States, two Chinese state-owned
    entities, COSCO Shipping and China Merchant Group, a major
    participant and proponent of China BRI, controls parts of the
    ports of Long Beach, Seattle, Los Angeles, Houston, and even
    Miami. However, the threat of malign Chinese influence doesn't
    just exist in countries near the U.S. Recently, the Georgian
    government announced that a Chinese consortium won the tender
    for the construction of a deep sea port in the city of Anaklia
    on the Georgia's Black Sea coast, granting the PRC a 49 percent
    share in the port.
        Strategic location of this port in the middle of the
    corridor, the trade route between China and Europe could make
    this a crucial project for President Xi. What's noteworthy is
    that one of the companies involved in the project, China
    Communications Construction Company, was barred from World Bank
    finance construction projects from 2011 to 2017 for
    participating in fraud and bribery and was sanctioned by the
    United States in 2020 for promoting militarization in the South
    China Sea. It's time for the United States to offer a real
    solution to countries lured in by China's debt trap diplomacy.
        In response to the PRC's nefarious dual use intentions, I'm
    offering the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute for my
    bill here shortly that would establish a comprehensive study of
    the efforts by the PRC to build, buy, or own strategic ports.
    Specifically, this bill requires the Secretary of State in
    coordination with the Secretary of Defense to develop a global
    mapping of foreign and domestic ports of importance to the
    United States due to its capacity of providing military,
    diplomatic, economic, and resource exploration superiority.
    Additionally, this bill requires a study analyzing the
    activities and plans of the PRC to expand its control over
    global strategic ports while recognizing the U.S. national
    security and economic implications for such ownership.
        And Mr. Chairman, I should note that while we're talking
    about global infrastructure and all these things, we have to
    remember what this means for our constituencies back home. Our
    citizens here in the United States are at risk to paying even
    higher prices. We see an unaffordable economy now.
        And we know that if China were to garner and increase its
    influence and footprint around the world, we're likely to see
    that pressure, that economic pressure, and therefore those
    higher prices for all of our citizens expand as well. So
    finally, this bill tasks the head of relevant Federal agencies
    to recommend measures to the U.S. Government that could take to
    ensure open access and security for strategic ports and offer
    alternatives to PRC investments in these ports. Let's talk to
    our allies and give them options.
        The ANS was negotiated in good faith with my Democrat
    colleagues. And where we incorporated their edits to enhance
    the reporting requirements for electronically enabled espionage
    posed to U.S. defense and diplomatic personnel within the
    vicinity of these strategic ports. And without stalwart
    diplomacy from the United States and its allies and partners,
    the PRC's global reach will only mature, deepening instability
    and insecurity abroad.
        It remains imperative that the U.S. do everything in its
    power to thwart malign Chinese influence and protect U.S.
    national and economic interests. And I urge my colleagues to
    support this bill. I yield back.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further
    discussion on the bill? Mr. Wilson.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And indeed, I'm
    grateful to support House Resolution 8683 by my good friend,
    Bill Huizenga of Michigan. This legislation provides more
    resources to combat the subversive Chinese Communist Party.
        I grew up with a special appreciate of the people of China.
    My father served there and cherished the Chinese people he
    served with in the Flying Tigers during World War II and Xian,
    Chengdu, and Kunming. But we now see that indeed the Chinese
    Community Party oppressing the citizens of China, are creating
    a global strategy, and it must be addressed by a global mapping
    study of the CCP brought about to determine the ports that have
    been bought or strategically built by the Chinese Communist
    Party for itself.
        And it's absolutely critical we have the more situational
    awareness on the military, diplomatic, economic, or resource
    capabilities to the Chinese Communist Part. In my birthplace of
    Charleston, South Carolina, I grew up with a special
    appreciation of the building of the Panama Canal. The canal is
    so vital to American families.
        The Republic of Panama with its talented people and I have
    family who live in Panama, we know that they are under stress
    due to Chinese influence. And Congressman Huizenga is correct
    again, that Chinese influence into Panama actually affects
    American families. With that, I'll urge all of my colleagues to
    support this legislation.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further
    discussion on the bill? There being no further discussion, the
    committee will move to consideration of amendments. Does any
    member wish to offer an amendment? Mr. Huizenga.
        Mr. Huizenga. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
    desk.
        Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the Huizenga
    amendment in the nature of a substitute, No. 111. The clerk
    shall report the amendment.
        [The Amendment offered by Mr. Huizenga follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Clerk. Substitute for the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 8683 offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan.
    Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following.
    Section 1, short title, this act may be cited as the Strategic
    Ports Reporting Act. Section 2----
        Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading is
    dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Huizenga. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I won't
    take the 5-minutes. I just wanted to reiterate that this ANS
    was negotiated in good faith with our colleagues across the
    aisle.
        And we incorporated a number of their edits to enhance the
    reporting requirements for specifically electronically enabled
    espionage that many in our defense and diplomatic corps have
    been subject to. And again, I would just like to reiterate the
    influence that we are seeing of China and its related companies
    and organizations. On the world economy, they continue to
    deepen their roots and their influence.
        And what that will mean to us as we found out a few years
    ago with COVID is, Mr. Chairman, the United States is put at a
    disadvantage. Our constituencies are put at a disadvantage. And
    whether it's with availability or with pricing, we know that
    our folks are dealing with higher prices already and some
    scarcity and some challenges with that. Let's not help the
    Chinese corner the market. And so with that, I'll yield back
    the balance of my time.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any other member
    seek recognition? Mr. Meeks is recognized.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2013 when Xi Jinping
    launched the Belt and Road Initiative and Maritime Silk Road
    Initiative, China embarked on a coordinated State effort to
    finance, acquire, access, enhance, and built ports around the
    world. Today, China is the world's largest trading country, and
    nearly all of its commerce, 95 percent, moves by sea.
        Control of foreign ports provides Beijing with greater
    access and influence in the host country and region where the
    port is based and presents a challenge to the United States
    presence and interest there. And although China's Navy has only
    one overseas naval base, its naval ambitions are clear. China
    is actively seeking additional basing locations, including on
    Africa's Atlantic Coast which would pose significant threats to
    major shipping routes.
        China already has the largest Navy in East Asia, and the
    U.S. Defense Department acknowledges China's Navy is the
    largest in the world. H.R. 8683 calls for a mapping of
    strategic ports and Beijing's attempts to gain control of them.
    And while I agree that it is critical that we have an accurate
    picture of the nature, extent, and intent of PRC involvement in
    projects around the world, I would also note that this work is
    already happening. In fact, a number of think tanks and
    academic institutions have done exactly that kind of mapping
    exercise on ports this bill is calling for. And I'm submitting
    for the record just one such report, tracking China's control
    of overseas ports, which I want to submit without objection.
        Chairman McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Meeks. Which was published just last month by the
    Council on Foreign Relations. Thanks to this report, we already
    know that China is actively engaged in 115 port projects and in
    least 68 countries with more than 65 billion dollars invested
    or promised. Of these publicly known projects, at least 89 port
    projects have characteristics that could make them suitable for
    military applications.
        I point this out because unfortunately many of my
    Republican colleagues often complain about wasting the American
    people's taxpayer dollars. Given Republican budget cuts, we are
    calling for the State Department and DOD to use their limited
    staffing and resources to do a mapping exercise that is
    redundant and already online for everyone to read. And if we're
    going to make them do this work, should we not at least
    authorize funds to create such a data base and strategy and
    fund the programs to address the risks and deficiencies and
    opportunities identify?
        But nevertheless, I am glad that this bill acknowledges the
    importance of investing in foreign ports to enhance our
    national security interests. We have to compete with China in
    that space. And I will note that I have raised concerns
    previously about imposing sanctions on foreign ports in third
    countries that are sympathetic to American foreign policy goals
    but don't want to be--I don't want to be brow beat into
    economic submission by American sanctions.
        This bill's premise that we need to compete with China in
    global port infrastructure is correct. But if we pursue an
    aggressive sanctions policy that forces sympathetic countries
    to choose, we may not like what they decide. We also need to
    acknowledge the complexity at play here. Many ports have U.S.,
    allied, and PRC companies all involved in different roles. We
    need a pragmatic strategy to compete, not a black and white
    approach that sanctions or ignores ports that deal with nations
    we don't like.
        While there's already extensive public mapping of the
    global ports owned, constructed, or operated by the PRC
    entities the strategy and reporting requirements in H.R. 8683
    will shed light on the impact of these ports on United States
    interest and national security and hopefully results in forward
    looking recommendations on that diplomatic development and
    defense engagements that we can use to mitigate the threat from
    such PRC activities. So I will support the ANS, the H.R. 8683,
    about Beijing's attempt to grow its global maritime influence
    through investments and foreign ports, and I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any other members
    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, question now occurs on
    the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by
    Representative Huizenga.
        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. 8683 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.R. 9564, the Houthi
    Human Rights Accountability Act. The bill was circulated in
    advance. Clerk shall designate the bill.
        [The Bill H.R. 9564 follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Clerk. H.R. 9564, to authorize the imposition of
    sanctions with respect to the Houthis and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the----
        Chairman McCaul. Without objection, first reading is
    dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to
    amendment at any point. Any discussion on the bill? Mr. Issa is
    recognized.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my
    support for the Human Rights Accountability Act, otherwise
    known as the Houthi Act. This legislation introduced by Mr.
    Phillips, the ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee to
    address the Houthi's blatant human rights abuses against the
    people of Yemen.
        The Houthis are a terrorist organization. And I will
    repeat, they are a terrorist organization that has sought to
    topple the legitimate government of Yemen. These are their
    three slogans: Death to America, Death to Israel, and A Curse
    Upon the Jews.
        They are also an Iranian proxy which has sought to aid
    Hamas by attacking international shipping in the Red Sea in the
    Gulf of Aden since October 7th. Beneath the headlines, however,
    there's also a committed systematic human rights abuse against
    the people under their control. This has been overlooked by the
    world because of the shelling, the bombing, and the other
    activities.
        While Saudi Arabia is undergoing a renaissance of liberty,
    looking forward to women's rights and participation, the
    Houthis in Yemen are taking the opposite approach and going
    back to 600 A.D. The Houthis have also been documented as using
    children into their ideology. This is the same ideology that
    caused October 7th.
        As we look at their violations of basic human rights, as we
    look at an administration that sadly has not given them this
    designation as a foreign terrorist organization, we ask why and
    we can find no good reason. And that's the reason that there is
    a bipartisan legislation intended on making it clear that in
    addition to their activities as a proxy for Iran, they're
    independently a foreign terrorist organization. And they need
    to be accounted for.
        The Houthi Human Rights Accountability Act shines a light
    on the Houthis attempt to co-op the generosity of the
    international community by attempts to indoctrinate Yemen youth
    in the bloody ideology and barbaric human rights abuses. And it
    will require a review of whether Houthi leaders who have been
    involved in stealing aid, brutalizing their people, and
    kidnaping have been properly sanctions in accordance with U.S.
    law. These straightforward goals are something we can agree to
    on a bipartisan basis at a time in which such legislation would
    otherwise be missed. With that, I urge support of it and would
    notify the chairman that I have one amendment when ready for a
    very small technical correction.
        Mr. Wilson [presiding]. Thank you very much, Congressman
    Darrell Issa of California. We now will proceed to Congressman
    Greg Meeks of New York.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I support this
    legislation because you must continue to call attention to the
    unnecessary and unfair suffering on the Yemeni civilians at the
    hands of the Houthi movement. Many Yemenis are experiencing
    persistent food scarcity, reoccurring disease, and medical good
    shortages because of illegal restrictions imposed by--imposed
    on aid by the Houthis.
        Houthi leadership continues to manipulate and
    instrumentalize and aid while enforcing oppressive policies on
    the treatment of women. The Houthis employ child soldiers and
    arbitrarily detain aid workers and opponents. This bill draws
    attention to these abusive practices through three reporting
    requirements that will help us to better understand Houthi
    efforts to block humanitarian assistance and the extent of
    human rights abuses.
        This legislation also requires determination as to whether
    Global Magnitsky Act and the Levinson Act sanctions for gross
    violations of human rights and hostage taking unwarranted on
    Houthi individuals. We must continue to hold the Houthis
    accountable for their oppression of the Yemeni civilians. And I
    want to thank my colleagues for bringing attention to these
    issues, and I will vote in favor of this bill. I yield back.
        Mr. Wilson. The gentleman yields. Is there any further
    discussion? We now have the Congressman from Minnesota, Dean
    Phillips.
        Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my
    colleague and friend, Mr. Issa, for leading this bill with me,
    the Houthi Human Rights Accountability Act. As has been said by
    both Mr. Meeks and Mr. Issa, we know the Houthis are an Iranian
    backed terrorist organization wreaking havoc not only across
    the region through its attacks in the Red Sea but perhaps most
    importantly right now on the Yemeni people.
        It's appalling. There are human rights abuses, especially
    against children as well as the continued detention of United
    Nations and diplomatic and NGO staff. Furthermore, they
    continue to detain U.S. locally employed staff from our embassy
    in Sanaa who've been held without justification for more than
    two and a half years--Americans held for more than two--or
    local embassy employees for more than two and a half years. As
    has been said, the bill requires three reports from the
    Department of State.
        First, a report on Houthi efforts to indoctrinate Yemenis
    to their extremist and anti-Semitic world view. Second, a
    report on human rights abuses committed by the Houthis. And
    third, a report on obstacles to the provision of humanitarian
    aid, including an assessment of Houthi interference and the
    steps the United States and our partners are taking to ensure
    humanitarian assistance is delivered unhindered and consistent
    with basic humanitarian principles.
        It also requires a determination as Mr. Meeks just said as
    whether certain Houthi actors should be subject to sanctions
    under the Magnitsky Act for gross violations of human rights
    and/or the Levinson Act for hostage taking. We need to counter
    the Houthis malign behavior, send a message to Iran, and
    protect the Yemeni civilian population. These actions are
    currently harming Yemenis.
        They're restricting access to desperately needed
    humanitarian aid, getting very little attention in these halls
    or around the world. And they're preventing peace in a country
    that needs it desperately. They must be held to account. And
    with that, I'm grateful to be working with my colleague, Mr.
    Issa, on a bipartisan piece of legislation that I think
    reflects well on this institution and this committee. With
    that, I yield back.
        Mr. Wilson. And we're grateful for your input, Congressman
    Dean Phillips of Minnesota, for your yielding back. And now----
        Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
        Mr. Wilson. Well, no, no.
        Mr. Issa. Oh, I'm sorry. There's more.
        Mr. Wilson. No, hey, everybody wants to say something nice
    about your legislation. Don't get in the way. OK. And so you
    particularly want to hear from the Republic of Illinois. And so
    we have Congressman Jonathan Jackson of Illinois.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you so much. I'd like to
    thank Congressman Issa and Congressman Phillips for their work.
    I strongly support the Houthi Human Rights Accountability Act
    because it's long overdue for this terrorist organization to be
    held accountable.
        The people of Yemen and the region have suffered
    tremendously through the hands of the Houthis who have
    obstructed every peace effort, committed gross human rights
    violations on its own citizens, including unlawful killings,
    starvation, and recruiting child soldiers. The Houthis has
    extended terror to the region, to the sea. And this is why I
    urge all of you to co-sponsor my bill, H.R. 8934, Sanction Sea
    Pirates Act of 2024, which passed this committee on a voice
    vote.
        My bill will require the President and other related
    branches of the U.S. Government to work with allies and
    partners around the globe to combat piracy around the globe and
    to curb the surge in piracy off the coast of Somalia and the
    Gulf of Aden. Impose sanctions with respect to any foreign
    person that knowingly engages in piracy, block foreign assets,
    et cetera. I yield back.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. There being no further
    discussion of the bill, the committee will move to consider
    amendments. And we are eager to hear from Congressman Darrell
    Issa of California.
        Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
        Mr. Wilson. The clerk shall distribute the amendment. The
    clerk shall report the amendment.
        [The Amendment offered by Mr. Issa follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3405.014

        The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 9564 offered by Mr. Issa of
    California, page 2, line 13, after a report, insert in
    unclassified forum with a classified annex if necessary. Page
    4, line----
        Mr. Issa. Chairman, I'd ask unanimous consent that it'd be
    considered as read.
        Mr. Wilson. Without objection, further reading of the
    amendment is dispensed with. Congressman Darrell Issa is
    recognized for 5 minutes on the amendment.
        Mr. Issa. In 30 seconds or less, Mr. Chairman, this
    amendment simply designates that the reports are unclassified.
    It makes no other technical changes, and I urge its adoption.
        Mr. Wilson. The gentleman yields back. Do any other members
    seek recognition? I will recognize Congressman--Ranking Member
    Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. I just want to say that I support Mr. Issa's
    amendment which makes minor technical corrections to the
    reporting requirement. I yield back.
        Mr. Wilson. Well, hey, bipartisanship lives.
        There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
    on an amendment being offered by Congressman Issa, No. 215.
        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 House Resolution 9564 as amended to the House
    for favorable recommendation.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, 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 House Resolution 9719,
    Strengthening USAID Management Act. The bill was circulated in
    advance. The clerk shall designate the bill.
        [The Bill H.R. 9719 follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Clerk. H.R. 9719, to amend the Foreign Assistance Act
    of 1961 to modify requirements regarding management of the
    United States Agency for International Development and for
    other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
    Representatives to the United States of America in Congress
    assembled. Section 1, short title, this act may be cited as the
    Strengthening USAID Management Act.
        Mr. Wilson. And without objection, the first reading is
    dispensed with and the bill is considered read and open to
    amendment at any time. Is there any discussion on the bill? And
    at this time, we'll recognize Ranking Member Greg Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for moving this bill up
    to markup. This bill, Strengthening USAID Management Act, does
    just what the title suggests. If gives USAID additional
    authority to manage its programs and workforce as global events
    demand more from this critical government agency.
        I'd like to start by commending Administrator Samantha
    Power for the work she has done over the last three and a half
    years to ensure the USAID is fully equipped to respond to both
    international disasters and global development needs. She has
    prioritized locally led development. She has championed USAID's
    Global Development Partnership Initiative to build back the
    ranks of the foreign and civil service.
        And she has installed two deputy administrators, including
    one dedicated to management and resources to elevate these
    issues that are foundational to the USAID success. This bill
    permanently authorizes crises operation staffing that allows
    USAID to flexibly hire in response to disasters and crises.
    These events are by their very nature impossible to predict and
    they do not lend themselves well to the typical U.S. Government
    hiring process.
        This authority permits USAID to hire subject matter experts
    quickly. For example, global health workers should respond to
    the current mpox outbreak and deploy them to the field for
    maximum impact in stemming the health emergency. This bill also
    authorizes USAID to use what's known as personal services
    agreement authority.
        This will help USAID treat its workforce more equitably by
    enabling the agency to promote foreign service nationals
    without requiring them to re-compete for their jobs. FSNs are
    the local staff at each country's mission that form the
    backbone of USAID's work abroad. Finally, the bill enabled the
    State Department, USAID, and other foreign policy agencies to
    continue overseas comparability pay for foreign service offices
    posted abroad.
        Without this extension, foreign services offices will see
    their wages cut by 22 percent which would harm both moral and
    the United States national interest. The Strengthening USAID
    Management Act ensures the agency has the tools necessary to
    fully support its workforce in the 21st century. And by making
    these necessary improvements, we will position USAID to better
    carry out its mission to promote a free and prosperous world.
        And I want to thank Chairman McCaul and his staff for
    working with us on this legislation. And I urge my colleagues
    to support this bill. And I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Wilson. The gentleman, ranking member, yields back. Is
    there any further discussion? We now recognize Congresswoman
    Young Kim of California.
        Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Chairman. I have an
    amendment to H.R. 9719, the Strengthening USAID Management Act.
        Mr. Wilson. There being no further discussion of the bill,
    the committee will now consider the amendments. And we now
    recognize Congresswoman Young Kim.
        Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Chairman. I want to
    thank my colleague, Representative Joaquin Castro, for working
    on this----
        Mr. Wilson. The clerk shall distribute the amendment. As we
    proceed, Congresswoman Titus is seeking recognition on the
    bill, and then we will proceed to amendments.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I just
    want to speak in support of the ranking member's bill, 9719,
    because it includes several important authorities that have
    been requested by USAID and that will make it stronger. These
    including the flexible staffing mechanisms so the agency can
    appropriately and effectively respond to global crises as they
    arise and also promoting foreign service nationals at post.
        But I especially want to voice support for the overseas
    comparability pay authority that this bills extends for 2
    years. Earlier this month, I led 25 of my colleagues, many from
    this committee, in a letter to the speaker, urging him to
    include overseas comparability pay in the CR draft which we
    will be voting on later this week. And Mr. Chairman, I ask
    unanimous consent to include that letter in the record.
        Mr. Wilson. Without objection.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you. In the letter, we highlight the fact
    that overseas comparability pay is a mission critical
    authorization with national security implications. It ensures
    basic pay equity between foreign service officers in Washington
    and those posted abroad to be sure that we are recruiting and
    retaining our top talent.
        If this authority were to lapse, our diplomatic corps which
    is a group of fiercely patriotic individuals who bravely
    advance U.S. interest abroad at great personal sacrifice would
    see an average of 22 percent pay cut. The immediate impact of
    an OCP lapse would be undeniable financial hardship. But it
    could also have long-term impacts on morale at a time when we
    are facing extreme competitiveness from China and Russia.
        One foreign service officer stationed in Algeria put the
    real human toll of this in stark terms. They said, and I quote,
    ``This OCP lapse would hurt early career officers like me who
    have little savings, continue to pay student loans, and are
    starting families. Losing 20 percent of my paycheck would force
    me to choose between important medical procedures, our
    mortgage, and my wife's student loans.
        ``It would make a challenging post more difficult for my
    family. I'm not the only one making a sacrifice by being here.
    My spouse is also sacrificing career opportunities, comfort,
    and safety in order to support the mission. If we couldn't make
    ends meet, I can't justify asking her to continue to make that
    sacrifice.''
        Now our advocacy on this issue through the letter was
    successful and an OCP authority extension was included in this
    CR. But it only lasts until December 20th. So the ranking
    member's bill is very important so that FSOs can rest assured
    that come December, that pay will be included for the next 2
    years and they won't face that potential pay cut because of
    inaction.
        As members of this committee, we talk about diplomacy all
    the time and we're duty bound to support our diplomats and
    development professionals as they bravely advance our foreign
    policy interest around the world. So I support the bill and I
    strongly urge my colleagues on the committee to do so.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you----
        Ms. Titus. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Wilson [continuing]. Congresswoman Titus. And we now
    shall resume with the consideration of amendments with the
    amendment by Congresswoman Young Kim of California. And the
    clerk shall distribute the amendment. The clerk shall report
    the amendment.
        [The Amendment offered by Mrs. Kim of California follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 9719 offered by Mrs. Kim of
    California. At the end, add the following: Section 8, Office of
    the Chief Economist. In general, the administrator is
    authorized to establish within USAID an independent office to
    be known as the Office of Chief Economist. In this subsection
    referred to as the office that shall, one, use economic theory
    evidenced----
        Mr. Wilson. And without objection, further reading of the
    amendment is dispensed. The gentlelady is recognized for 5
    minutes on the amendment.
        Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Chairman. And I want to
    thank my colleague, Representative Joaquin Castro, for working
    on this common sense amendment with me. My amendment authorizes
    USAID's Office of the Chief Economist or OCE. It does not
    provide any new funding but simply codifies OCE's underlying
    legislative authority to strengthen USAID's function.
        Since 2011, OCE has supported USAID's mission to achieve
    the greatest impact with the fewest taxpayer dollars as well as
    help USAID respond to global challenges such as changing market
    conditions, economic shocks, and severe debt distress. OCE
    promotes the use of cost effectiveness evidence in agency
    decisionmaking and provides macroeconomic analysis, software
    solutions, and research to inform policy and program design and
    implementation. Codifying authorities for OCE would help
    prioritize efforts to integrate best practices for USAID's work
    across all sectors through post-project performance
    measurement. We need to make sure that USAID resources go
    toward efforts that have the greatest and most sustainable
    impact.
        This amendment ensures that economists and technical
    experts continue to play a key advisory role in the agency's
    programming and decisionmaking. I urge my colleagues to support
    this bipartisan amendment. And I yield the balance of my time.
        Mr. Wilson. The gentlelady yields back. Do the other
    members seek recognition? We now recognize the ranking member,
    Congressman Greg Meeks of New York.
        Mr. Meeks. I want to thank Representative Kim and Castro
    for offering this amendment to my bill. This amendment would
    institutionalize the Office of the Chief Economist at USAID
    which was created 2 years ago to take an innovative approach
    incorporating evidence of behavioral economics into USAID's
    programming. Since its establishment, the office has amplified
    the agency's efforts to ensure programs are cost effective and
    achieve measurable outcomes all while taking into account
    economic analysis across multiple factors.
        I am encouraged to see bipartisan support for their
    efforts, and I look forward to future innovation from the
    Office of the Chief Economist. And I'm pleased to support this
    amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Wilson. Do any other members seek recognition?
        There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
    on the amendment offered by Congresswoman Young Kim, No. 75.
        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 House Resolution 9719 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 the staff is authorized to
    make any technical or conforming changes.
        Mr. McCormick [presiding]. Pursuant to notice, I now call
    up H. Res. 1348 urging the government of Nigeria to immediately
    release Tigran Gambaryan from imprisonment. The resolution was
    circulated in advance. The clerk shall designate the
    resolution.
        The Clerk. H. Res. 1348, urging the government of Nigeria
    to immediately release Tigran Gambaryan from imprisonment.
    Whereas Tigran Gambaryan is a citizen of the United States and
    a resident of Georgia and a former Federal agent. Whereas
    Tigran Gambaryan worked for the Internal Revenue Service for
    over 10 years investigating highly public crimes and seizing
    over 4 billion dollars in illicit funds on behalf of the U.S.
    Government. Whereas Tigran Gambaryan on the date of his
    detainment was employed by Finance Holding Limited as the head
    of the financial crime compliance. Whereas on February 26th,
    2024----
        Mr. McCormick. Without objection, the first reading is
    dispensed with and the resolution is considered read and open
    to amendment at any point. Without objection, I will present
    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 purpose of amendment. I recognize
    myself for a statement.
        I deeply appreciate the committee's consideration on this
    important resolution today during this markup. As many of you
    know, my constituent, Mr. Tigran Gambaryan, has been wrongfully
    detained by the Nigerian government since February. That's 7
    months now.
        The Nigerian government arrested Mr. Gambaryan after luring
    him to Nigeria for a meeting with Nigerian officials in his
    official capacity of Binance's head of financial crime
    compliance. This is a citizen who's never been accused of
    anything of wrongdoing in the United States. He was an IRS
    investigative agent.
        Once detained there, they took away his passport and held
    him without legal basis or without even charging him for weeks.
    Since then, the Nigerian government prosecutors have thrown
    bogus charges against him as legal justification to hold him
    hostage. Tigran is being held in the notorious Kuje Prison
    where they imprisoned Boko Haram, an ISIS terrorist.
        He is being denied basic due process and repeatedly denied
    adequate medical care despite the fact that he suffers from
    malaria, pneumonia, tonsillitis, and complications from two
    herniated discs which make it extremely painful to walk. The
    situation is so dire that we recently celebrated the, quote-
    unquote, ``good news'' that his lawyers were able to gain
    access to the prison to meet with Tigran. We were relieved that
    the prison officials allowed him access to a walker to attend
    the meeting because he had been bedridden for days due to
    excruciating back pain.
        I could go on forever, showing stories of inhumane
    treatment Tigran is suffering, not to mention his wife and two
    young children waiting at home for his return. This is no way
    for an American citizen to be treated by custody of a foreign
    government, especially one that's supposed to be our ally and
    partner in the region. I've been to Nigeria.
        I'm actually the godfather to two children of Nigerian
    descent. This means a lot to me, and Tigran is my constituent.
    My resolution, H. Res 1348, does four things.
        One, it calls out the Nigerian government for their
    blatantly false claims of wrongdoing by Tigran Gambaryan and
    their inhumane treatment of an American citizen in their
    custody. Two, it urges the Nigerian government to release
    Tigran and provide him unfettered consular access, unrestricted
    medical care, and full due process to his rights. Three, it
    urges the State Department to use all available assets, all
    means to secure his release and formally declare him as
    wrongfully detained under the Levinson Act. Four, it conveys
    our thoughts for his family and all other U.S. citizens who
    have been wrongfully detained abroad.
        The U.S. Government must do everything in its power to
    secure the release of Tigran Gambaryan and all our citizens
    wrongfully detailed abroad. Unfortunately, this has been
    applied unevenly and politically. This man deserves his rights.
        And I'm thankful to my co-lead, Representative French Hill
    and Representatives Houlahan and Fitzpatrick for visiting
    Tigran during his imprisonment in Nigeria and for their support
    in advocating for his release. I also want to thank the HFAC
    Africa Subcommittee staff and the U.S. embassy consular staff
    in Nigeria for their tremendous work to support Tigran and his
    family during this incredibly difficult time. Passage of this
    resolution is just the first step.
        And we will not stop until Tigran is released. I ask for my
    colleagues' support of this bill. Thank you. And with that, I
    yield back.
        Is there discussion on this resolution? I recognize Mr.
    Meeks for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. McCormick. And I'd like to
    express my concern to Tigran Gambaryan whose health has
    deteriorated significantly since he's been held in prison in
    Nigeria. I also want to thank his wife and family who have been
    working tirelessly to advocate for him.
        The resolution before us urges the government of Nigeria to
    release him immediately on humanitarian and medical grounds.
    Now I understand the Nigerian government has accused Binance,
    Mr. Gambaryan's employer, of crimes related to harming
    Nigerian's economy and working through this, its judicial
    system, to pursue that case. However, it is clear that Mr.
    Gambaryan's health has suffered significantly during his
    detention.
        He has contracted malaria and pneumonia and is reportedly
    in great deal of pain resulting from herniated discs in his
    back. The U.S. Government officials have communicated with the
    Nigerian government at the highest levels to raise Mr.
    Gambaryan's case and to request his release on humanitarian
    grounds. And I'm greatly disappointed that the Nigerian
    government has not officially responded to those requests.
        It is the responsibility of the United States State
    Department to determine whether Americans imprisoned abroad are
    wrongfully detained. And I know that the State Department is
    fully engaged in Mr. Gambaryan's case. And they're weighing the
    facts according to their process.
        But regardless of how that process plays out, we must
    continue to press the Nigerian government for Mr. Gambaryan's
    release, urge them to respect his fundamental rights, and take
    far greater care to ensure his health and well being. And so
    therefore, I will support the resolution. And I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Mr. McCormick. I want to thank the ranking member for his
    support in this bipartisan effort to do what's right for an
    American citizen. And with that, I also recognize my co-sponsor
    and somebody who's been very near and dear to this process and
    who's been really probably the hinge pin of the efforts to
    release Tigran. And I appreciate him, and I recognize him for 5
    minutes, Mr. French Hill.
        Mr. Hill. Chairman McCormick, thank you. Ranking Member
    Meeks, thank you for your commitment. I come to the committee
    today with a heavy heart and great frustration that an allied
    government of the United States, the great country on the West
    Coast of Africa and Nigeria, a longtime partner of the United
    States and the fight against ISIS and the fight against Boko
    Haram has taken this unprecedented of Mr. Chairman snatching an
    innocent American citizen under false pretenses in their
    country and imprisoning him.
        So I support this resolution, H. Res. 1348. fully. But I
    would argue to my colleagues asking for his release on
    humanitarian grounds which is a term used by the State
    Department is good but unacceptable to me because he needs to
    be released, period, full stop as an American citizen innocent
    of these trumped up charges, innocent of any connection with
    the assertion that the company, Binance, has in some way
    damaged Nigeria and Nigeria's economy, an economy that is
    longsuffering and the Nigerian people longsuffering. So I stand
    in support of this on behalf of Tigran and his family, his
    wife, Yuki, their two kids, aged 10 and 5, who their dad just
    went on a business trip in February and has been locked up in
    prison since with spotty medical attention, spotty legal
    attention, solid consular support from our embassy in Abuja.
        But ambivalence, contempt, and outrageous behavior on the
    part of the so-called legal system in Nigeria. And the
    government of Nigeria. We're standing with the family.
        Mr. Chairman, Representative Haley Stevens and I co-chair
    the task force here in the House which this committee has been
    such an important part of to bring attention to those Americans
    wrongfully detained and illegally held abroad by terror groups
    or by State actors. And it's one thing when we talk about
    Syrians or Iranians or Russians. But what a disappointment that
    we sit in this hearing and we talk about our friends in
    Nigeria.
        So I hope all members will not only support this
    resolution. But I hope all members on this committee will write
    the Ambassador to Washington from Nigeria and express your
    utter dismay about putting our partnership for peace,
    prosperity, public health at risk because they wrongfully
    detained an American citizen. I've made that clear to the
    Nigerian ambassador.
        I got double talk about legal process in Abuja and long
    breaks, summer breaks in the court schedule. I don't get that.
    And so I support our Ambassador, Rick Mills, efforts in Abuja.
        But I urge the State Department, I urge President Biden
    turn up the heat on the government in Nigeria. Honor the fact
    that an American citizen has been snatched by a friendly
    government and put in prison over something he had no
    responsibility for in a country that not only has good
    relations with our country but we in the Justice Department and
    the IRS, former employers of Tigran Gambaryan have a deferred
    prosecution arrangement with Binance, with Binance. The
    government of Nigeria has leverage over Binance by just working
    with the United States and our legal system and our observation
    and oversight of Binance.
        And it makes the snatching of an American citizen even more
    outrageous. So I ask all my colleagues to support this
    resolution. I ask for your prayers for Tigran's health under
    extraordinarily poor conditions.
        I ask you to pray for comfort for his friends, his family,
    his spouse, Yuki, that this man is released unconditionally by
    the Nigerian government. And I think this resolution is an
    important step. And I hope it comes to the House floor
    promptly. And with that, I yield back.
        Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Hill, a true warrior for
    rights of citizens of the United States of America. And I want
    to speak directly to the Nigerian government right now, those
    representatives that come here to the United States as
    Ambassadors and all those people in power who have any kind of
    effect on this case. I want to ask them a simple question. Is
    it worth it?
        Is it worth it to go after a guy who was asked to come to
    Nigeria, who came without resistance, who came willingly on
    good faith, on good faith. A citizen of the United States of
    America, is it worth it, a guy who's never had a question about
    his integrity or his honesty or breaking of any law? Is it
    worth it to take away the rights of a family man a father, a
    husband, a brother?
        Is it worth it to put in contempt the relationship between
    two countries that at no time in history have needed each other
    more than right now. Is it worth it to continue to prosecute
    this guy for something he didn't do? Is it worth it to take
    away his health?
        Would you do this to your family? Would you do this to your
    friend to try to prove a point that's not going to be proven by
    this? I challenge those in charge of this judicial process and
    charge the Nigerian government to take the right road, to be
    righteous and make sure that this process is worth it.
        Are there any further questions or discussions on this
    topic? There being no further discussion on this resolution,
    the committee will move to consider--consideration of the
    amendments. Oh, Mr. Jackson. You're recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you, Honorable Congressman
    McCormick. Thank you, Ranking Member Meeks.
        I support this bill, not to interfere in Nigeria's judicial
    process, but to appeal to the Government of Nigeria, whom we
    have had a very respectable and long-lasting working
    relationship, to support the release of Mr. Tigran Gambaryan on
    a humanitarian ground. With his health deteriorating and a lack
    of proper medical attention, Mr. Tigran must be able to come
    home where he can get the proper life-saving care he urgently
    needs.
        Our two countries have had a long shared history and a
    strong relationship for decades, which should not be
    overshadowed by this case. I hope to engage the Nigerian
    Government soon with my other colleagues to assist in releasing
    Mr. Tigran Gambaryan on humanitarian grounds as soon as
    possible. This is an earnest appeal, and I thank you for your
    consideration. I yield back.
        Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Jackson.
        The gentleman yields back. Are there any other further
    discussion?
        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 committee reports
    H.Res. 1348 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 the staff is authorized to
    make any technical and conforming changes.
        Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 9718, Extending and
    Enhancing the U.S.-U.K. Nuclear Cooperation for Mutual Defense
    Purpose Act. The bill was circulated in advance. The clerk
    shall designate the bill.
        [The Bill H.R. 9718 follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Clerk. H.R. 9718, to provide for the approval of the
    amendment to the agreement between the Government of the United
    States of America and----
        Mr. McCormick. Without objection, the first reading is
    dispensed with, and the bill is considered read and open to
    amendment at any point.
        Are there any discussions to the bill?
        Mr. Zinke, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for today's
    consideration of H.R. 9718, the Extension and Enhancing of the
    U.S. Nuclear and U.K. Nuclear Cooperation for Mutual Defense
    Purpose Act.
        Short history--it began in 1958. This Congress renewed it
    in 2014. It is now up for renewal. What this bill does is two
    things. It corrects an ambiguity between 60 session days and 60
    days, and then it specifies that it is renewed.
        Just a brief summary of why this is important--I think
    everyone knows we face a potential nuclear conflict in multiple
    theaters, to include Ukraine, the Middle East, and I would say
    the Pacific. The U.K.-U.S. mutual agreement is the core to
    these agreements that extend globally. And without this
    agreement, other things are affected, like the Pacific.
        And my gentleman to my right from Guam--as the Secretary, I
    visited Guam, American Samoa, and the territories in the
    Pacific. And I can tell you they are the front line. And having
    an extension of this, a very important, critical piece, is
    absolutely essential to the defense of our country in the
    Pacific.
        So, with that, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and
    send a clear message to our allies and our adversaries that
    America defends freedom. And with that, I yield back.
        Mr. McCormick. The gentleman yields, and Ranking Member
    Meeks is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you.
        I support this bill. And as a result of the Biden-Harris
    administration's efforts over the past 4 years, opioid deaths
    are at a 3-year low. Yet every day, Americans are dying across
    our country due to the scourge of fentanyl afflicting too many
    communities across the country.
        Precursors, or chemical components, used to synthesize
    these deadly--wrong one?
        Mr. Zinke. I do agree fentanyl is a problem in the Pacific.
        Mr. Meeks. I still support this bill.
        Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we are done
    here.
        Mr. Meeks. I still support this bill. The special
    relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom
    is among the most important bilateral relationships for U.S.
    foreign policy and U.S. national security, a relationship that
    has only grown stronger under the leadership of the Biden-
    Harris administration. From helping Ukraine fight for its
    freedom and independence against Russia's horrific war of
    aggression, to fighting climate change, to strengthening our
    partnership in the Indo-Pacific with AUKUS, the United States
    and the U.K. continue to stand side by side.
        And with that relationship in mind, I thank my colleagues
    for bringing forth this measure today, one that ensures that
    the current cooperation on nuclear energy and nuclear security
    between the United States and the United Kingdom can continue.
    This measure is simple. It ensures that the amended defense
    agreement the administration submitted to Congress in July of
    this year, after already having undergone deliberative
    interagency technical review, can go into effect unhindered by
    the flux of our legislative calendar.
        And with that, I support this bill and yield back.
        Mr. McCormick. The gentleman yields. Is there any further
    discussion?
        There being no further discussion of the bill, the
    committee will move to consideration of the amendments. Does
    any member wish to offer an amendment?
        There being no amendments, I move that committee report
    H.R. 9718 to the House with a favorable recommendation. All
    those in favor, say 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 the staff is authorized to
    make any technical and conforming changes.
        Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.Res. 1449, condemning
    the global rise of antisemitism and calling upon countries and
    international bodies to counter antisemitism. The resolution
    was circulated in advance. The clerk shall designate the
    resolution.
        [The Bill H.Res. 1449 follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Clerk. H.Res. 1449, condemning the global rise of
    antisemitism and calling upon countries and international
    bodies to counter----
        Mr. McCormick. 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?
        Ms. Manning, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
    personally thank you and Ranking Member Meeks for your
    leadership, as well as your staff for working with me to
    advance this important bipartisan resolution to mark up.
        I am proud to speak in favor of H.Res. 1449, a bipartisan
    House resolution I introduced with my dear friend Congressman
    Chris Smith supporting global efforts to counter antisemitism.
    It has been an honor to serve alongside him as co-chair of the
    House Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Antisemitism.
        Mr. Chairman, we know that antisemitism is on the rise
    around the world. We know what a threat that is not just to the
    Jewish community but to democracy and to the very fabric of our
    societies around the globe. Today, not even 80 years since the
    liberation of Auschwitz, antisemitism has grown, taken on new
    forms, and spread to more parts of the world.
        And as we have seen since the Hamas terrorist attack of
    October 7, 2023, the single deadliest day for Jews since the
    Holocaust, antisemitism around the world has skyrocketed. And
    let me State that antisemitism skyrocketed on October 8, before
    there was any idea of response to that horrific terrorist
    slaughter and capture of innocent Israelis, including American
    citizens.
        Here in the United States, FBI data shows that anti-Jewish
    hate crimes increased in 2023 by nearly 63 percent from 2022,
    totaling the highest number recorded in almost three decades.
    Jewish Americans make up around 2 percent of the U.S.
    population, yet antisemitic hate crimes accounted for more than
    15 percent of all hate crimes reported by the FBI and two-
    thirds of all religion-based hate crimes.
        Yet even though we face a significant global challenge, we
    should not despair. That is because there has been critical and
    unprecedented progress made in the fight against antisemitism
    in recent years. In 2004, the OSCE acknowledged that
    antisemitism had assumed new forms and posed a new threat to
    security and stability in the region. In 2016, the
    International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance built
    international consensus around a valuable working definition of
    antisemitism.
        And in recent years, many countries around the world have
    appointed special envoys or coordinators or advanced national
    strategies to deal with the rise of hate against Jews. Congress
    and this committee have also taken the lead in supporting
    efforts like the Global Antisemitism Review Act, the Combating
    European Antisemitism Act, and the Special Envoy to Monitor and
    Combat Antisemitism Act.
        This July, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Deborah Lipstadt
    unveiled the Global Guidelines for Countering Antisemitism, a
    new landmark international framework for acting against
    antisemitism, which countries around the world can sign on to
    and embrace.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to request unanimous consent to
    enter into the record a copy of the global guidelines, as well
    as Ambassador Lipstadt's speech of July 17, 2024.
        Mr. McCormick. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information referred to can be found in the appendix:]
        Ms. Manning. I want to commend my good friend Ambassador
    Lipstadt and her team at the State Department for their
    excellent work on these guidelines.
        We now have a multilateral international framework that can
    provide structure and guidance with best practices we know to
    be effective to other governments and to our own embassies, who
    have a shared obligation and responsibility to counter
    antisemitism. This includes clearly and unequivocally
    condemning antisemitism, providing physical protection and
    security for Jewish communities, enforcing hate crimes, and
    educating future generations about the Holocaust and the long
    history of hate targeting Jews.
        I am pleased that more than 40 countries and international
    bodies have already endorsed the guidelines, and we are working
    hard to make sure many more countries in different regions join
    them in the coming months.
        House Resolution 1449 condemns the rise of antisemitism and
    expresses our support for these guidelines and other efforts to
    counter antisemitism. I want to thank my colleagues on both
    sides of the aisle who have joined as cosponsors of this
    important resolution. I deeply appreciate your leadership and
    commitment to this effort.
        Mr. Chairman, antisemitism is wrong. It is dangerous. It
    deserves to be condemned. These guidelines will strengthen the
    resolve and provide the tools for governments around the world
    to counter the scourge of antisemitism and to prevent its
    normalization. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of
    this resolution.
        And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. McCormick. The gentlelady yields.
        And with that, I will add that at no time in the history of
    the United States has there been a time where someone could
    actually steal a flag, burn it in front of us, and then raise a
    Hamas terrorist flag above United States property. These are
    truly troubling times. I hate that we have to face it, but at
    least we are facing it together. I am 100 percent behind you,
    and I look forward to continued resolutions on this.
        With that, Mr. Wilson is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Sadly, antisemitism is on the rise around the world. I
    particularly am shocked, as I grew up in Charleston, South
    Carolina, where at the time of the American Revolution, the
    largest Jewish population in the New World was located in
    Charleston.
        Additionally, I am very grateful to my home State.
    Actually, the province of South Carolina was the very first
    constitution to recognize Judaism, and I am very grateful that
    in South Carolina, the very first Jewish American elected to
    public office in the New World was in the Provincial Assembly
    of South Carolina. And then, sadly, the first Jewish American
    killed in the revolution was in Charleston, South Carolina. And
    so it is particularly shocking to me that there would be
    antisemitism.
        Following the mass murder of October 7 and the existential
    defensive response by Israel, which has been very responsible
    with the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, we
    have witnessed horrific targeting of Jewish persons around the
    globe. The response by the international community has been
    disgraceful. Organizations and countries have used the regime
    in Tehran talking points to discredit Israel and undermine the
    right of its existence and self-defense.
        I am very grateful to support House Resolution 1449. Author
    Congresswoman Kathy Manning of my neighboring State of North
    Carolina is to be commended. And she has determined not to run
    for her reelection, and she will be missed by her Republican
    colleagues for her bipartisan service, as she so eloquently
    just stated, both sides of the aisle.
        Additionally, another guy of both sides of the aisle,
    ironically, Congressman Phillips, is sitting next to
    Congresswoman Manning. And he, too, will be appreciated for
    making a difference for the people of Minnesota.
        I will continue my service of working for accountability in
    international organizations to combat rampant antisemitism
    fueled by those intent on destroying Israel and America and
    Western civilization. They truly do mean death to Israel, death
    to America. Every American family is at risk, and we can
    address this by addressing antisemitism now. I yield back.
        Mr. McCormick. The gentleman yields.
        Ranking Member Meeks is recognized.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you.
        I strongly support this resolution. Historic levels of
    antisemitism continue to rise at home and abroad. This remains
    a concern for me, and it should be for every member of this
    committee and all decent people all over the world--antisemitic
    tropes and anti-Jewish stereotypes, including age-old and
    dangerous accusations of dual loyalty against Jewish Americans.
    We must stop this behavior in the United States and help allies
    and partners to stop it overseas.
        I would like to enter into the record an article that
    represents the FBI's newly released statistics showing that
    antisemitic hate crimes in the United States surged 63 percent
    in 2023, with 1,832 recorded incidents, the highest on record.
        Rep Manning's resolution serves to help allies and partners
    abroad formulate plans to combat antisemitism based on the hard
    work of Deborah Lipstadt, the Special Envoy to Monitor and
    Combat Antisemitism, a position authorized by this committee.
        I also want to thank Rep Manning, vice chair of the Foreign
    Affairs Committee and the sponsor of this resolution. She has a
    decades-long track record of fighting to combat antisemitism
    and standing up for Jewish people. We have been lucky to have
    her serve with us in Congress, and we will miss her greatly
    following her retirement at the end of the year.
        So I just want to make sure that I personally just say
    thank you to Rep Manning, who has been a friend to me, a
    confidant, one that I could depend on who is tireless with her
    service and her work on behalf of the committee and on behalf
    not only of the people of North Carolina, which she represents,
    but on behalf not only of Jewish people, but of all of the
    people of the United States of America.
        We thank you for your service, your focus, and your
    dedication to this great country. And we wish you well, and you
    will be missed here.
        And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. McCormick. The gentleman yields.
        Mr. Phillips is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I just want to support the beautiful words of both
    Ranking Member Meeks and my friend Mr. Wilson relative to our
    colleague Kathy Manning, who I celebrate for introducing this
    condemnation of the global rise of antisemitism and also with
    Representative Smith for co-leading that with her.
        As a Jewish American, I can tell you it is true. We have
    never quite felt in our lifetimes like we do right now. And if
    one of us is under threat in the United States of America or
    around the world, then we all are. And antisemitism is the
    canary in the coal mine, and it has found a home here in the
    United States on the far right and on the far left.
        And there is no legislation, there is no mandate, there is
    no president or prime minister who can eliminate it. But I do
    want to encourage and promote and celebrate those on both sides
    of the aisle, my Republican and Democratic colleagues, for
    acknowledging this problem and agreeing to work together both
    here in this country and around the world to root it out the
    same way we do with Islamophobia, homophobia, racism, and hate
    in all its forms.
        So I want to thank my friends on both sides of the aisle
    and to my colleague Kathy Manning for sponsoring this and
    encourage, once again, all of us to work together to recognize
    the humanity in all. With that, I yield back.
        Mr. McCormick. The gentleman yields back. Is there any
    further discussion?
        Just a point of privilege, thank you, again, Ms. Manning,
    for your service. You will be missed.
        There being no further discussion of the resolution, the
    committee will move to consideration of the amendments. Does
    any member wish to offer an amendment?
        There being no amendments, I move that committee reports
    H.Res. 1449 to the House with 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.
        The request for a vote has been made. A roll call has been
    requested. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, the
    vote will be postponed.
        The committee will recess for votes on the floor. We will
    reconvene after votes.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Self. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 9172, the
    Destruction Initiative for Stored Precursors Overseas and Safe
    Enforcement, DISPOSE Act.
        (The Bill H.R. 9172 follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Self. The bill was circulated in advance. The clerk
    shall designate the bill.
        The Clerk. H.R. 9172, to establish the precursor chemical
    destruction initiative to promote bilateral counter-drug
    interdiction efforts with the government of specified countries
    and other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of--
    --
        Mr. Self. 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. Stanton is
    recognized.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I want to
    say thank you to Chair Salazar and Ranking Member Castro for
    leading on this important bill.
        The fentanyl epidemic has devastated American families. As
    a representative from a border State of Arizona I have heard
    time and time again from frustrated mayors, county executives,
    heads of local non-profits, business owners, law enforcement,
    and most importantly Arizona families. I have heard about the
    disastrous effects of fentanyl trafficking on our communities.
        Most fentanyl is smuggled into the United States through
    legal ports of entry and it is almost entirely manufactured by
    criminal organizations in Latin America using precursor
    chemicals legally imported from China.
        This Congress has invested heavily in border security to
    catch these deadly drugs robustly funding the Customs and
    Border Protection officers and new technology and various anti-
    narcotics entities, but there is more work to do in
    collaboration with our Latin American partners to cutoff the
    illicit drug supply chain at its head.
        The Destruction Initiative for Stored Precursors Overseas
    and Safe Enforcement, or DISPOSE Act, will create fentanyl and
    precursor chemical destruction facilities in Mexico, Colombia,
    and Peru, three critical drug trafficking choke points, and
    buildupon existing narcotics initiatives stopping these deadly
    drugs well before they reach our southern border.
        It is a straightforward bipartisan bicameral bill that
    requires the State Department to carry out a precursor chemical
    destruction initiative to: (1) improve the rate of seizures and
    destruction of these base ingredients; (2) dispose of seized
    chemicals in an environmentally safe way; and (3) ensure that
    seized chemicals are not reintroduced into the illicit drug
    pipeline.
        By destroying fentanyl and precursor chemicals we target a
    major financial source for cartels that continue to endanger
    American lives and American national security. I urge my
    colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 9172, and I yield back.
        Mr. Self. The gentleman yields back.
        Is there any further discussion?
        Seeing none, there being no further discussion on 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. 9172 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 the staff is authorized to make any technical and
    conforming changes.
        Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.Res. 1435, Raising
    Concern About the Proposed Constitutional Reforms in Mexico.
        [The Resolution H.Res. 1435 follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Self. The resolution was circulated in advance. The
    clerk shall designate the resolution.
        The Clerk. H.Res. 1435, Raising Concern About the Proposed
    Constitutional Reforms in Mexico. Whereas, the United States
    and Mexico----
        Mr. Self. Without objection, the first reading is dispensed
    with and the resolution is considered read and open to
    amendment at any point.
        Without objection, the Stanton Amendment in the Nature of
    Substitute circulated to members in advance shall be considered
    as read and will be treated as original text for purposes of
    amendment.
        Is there any discussion on the resolution? Mr. Stanton is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you
    to Chair Salazar for her partnership on this important
    resolution.
        The U.S.-Mexico relationship is one of the world's most
    economically significant and improving the trade relationship
    between the two countries has been a focus of my public service
    career, first on city council, then as mayor, and now as a
    member of the House of Representatives.
        Mexico has been my home State of Arizona's No. 1 trading
    partner for decades and this past year Mexico surpassed China
    as the No. 1 trading partner for the entire the United States.
    Our two countries exchanged nearly $1 trillion in goods and
    services last year alone supporting 5 million American jobs.
    But as tensions with China increase Mexico is ripe for
    nearshoring opportunities, particularly those supporting the
    semiconductor industry, that stand to reshape Mexico's economy.
        This is the moment where the trade relationship between the
    United States and Mexico should be growing exponentially, but
    instead outgoing Mexican President Lopez Obrador is pushing
    through constitutional reforms mere days before President-Elect
    Sheinbuam takes office, that changes--that risk the future of
    this critical relationship to the detriment of both of our
    countries.
        The slate of proposed constitutional reforms will harm the
    independence of the Mexican judiciary, weaken Mexico's
    regulatory apparatus, degrade its investment potential in the
    eyes of the international business community, and undermine the
    country's ability to fulfill international commitments
    including the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
        I find four of these proposed reforms especially
    concerning. First, that--one, that would completely eliminate
    seven autonomous agencies that oversee Mexico's energy and
    hydrocarbon industries, telecommunications, social development
    and education policy, and the enforcement of anti-trust and
    transparency laws. Not only would eliminating these agencies
    remove essential checks on Presidential power, they directly
    conflict with Mexico's commitments under the USMCA limiting
    market access, competition, and state-owned enterprise.
        The second would give Mexico's state-owned electric utility
    primacy over any private investment undermining U.S. and
    Canadian economic interests and any energy we produce in favor
    of Mexico's energy companies. This directly conflicts with the
    USMCA clause that prevents countries from rolling back free
    market measures.
        The third would ban genetically modified corn. This
    conflicts with the USMCA market access requirements and
    violates sanitation and inspection requirements. Such a ban
    could also lead to the loss of thousands of U.S. agricultural
    jobs as Mexico is one of the U.S.' largest agricultural export
    markets.
        And finally, the slate of judicial reforms. These changes
    which were rushed through the Mexican Congress and became law
    just on September 15 transform the Mexican judiciary by
    mandating that all Federal judges from the local level up to
    the supreme court be directly elected as soon as next year.
    They also drastically lower the minimum threshold for the
    competence of judges.
        American government and business leaders, the America
    public are paying close attention. Electing judges leaves the
    entire judicial process vulnerable to political influence and
    donor interest and critically this change will create backlogs
    in settling our trade disputes. May disagreements must first go
    through Mexico's domestic court system with its new possibly
    inexperienced judges before seeking arbitration under the
    USMCA.
        I have heard directly from business leaders, some of whom
    have indicated that this change will threaten future investment
    in Mexico. At a time when our two nations should be working so
    closely together to tap into the potential of nearshoring these
    reforms erode legal certainty, a risky prospect for business
    already operating and those considering expanding their
    operations in Mexico.
        The decision is ultimately up to the Mexican people and
    their democratic sovereign government, but the impact of these
    proposed reforms is far-reaching. As a representative from a
    border State and as an advocate, a long-time advocate for
    closer economic ties between the United States and Mexico, I
    believe it is our duty to work toward solutions that support
    growth and prosperity for both the Mexican and the American
    people.
        So I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this resolution. And
    again I want to thank Chair Salazar for her partnership in this
    important effort. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Self. The gentleman yields back.
        Is there any further discussion? Mr. Mast, you are
    represented--you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman. And I want to start by
    thanking Chair Salazar for her statement, her Resolution 1435
    raising concerns about the proposed constitutional reforms in
    Mexico.
        And as we are speaking about this, I want to take the
    opportunity to give a warning to the outgoing president of
    Mexico that America is watching, and future leadership in
    Mexico that America is watching what you are doing right now
    and has been paying attention.
        I want to bring to light something specific that has taken
    place. In 2022, Mexico sent in their military to shut down a
    materials mining operation and deep water port in Mexico owned
    by an American company called Vulcan Materials. They had
    legally held operations in there. Again, Mexico sent in the
    military, cutoff these--this supply chain to the United States
    of America. It is used to build homes, used to build roads. It
    is rock aggregate that goes into homes and roads in the State
    of Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and other places. And literally
    Mexico allowed for other companies to come into these closed
    down operations and start operating themselves. We have words
    for that and we don't allow this sort of thing in the United
    States of America.
        But again, I want to offer this as a warning to Mexico and
    to any companies that would go out there and operate inside of
    a facility that is of a U.S.-owned company that Mexico would
    dare go in and take over. I would offer that as a warning. We
    are watching you. Don't do it. Tell other companies do not
    participate in doing that because you will absolutely be held
    accountable for conducting any operations like that.
        Mexico's actions and what they have done here, they will
    have a chilling effect on investment. That will have a chilling
    effect on trade. It will undermine our bilateral relationship,
    as it should, just like if the United States of America did the
    same thing to them.
        In that, I would just ask that my colleagues continue to
    pay attention to this issue and I thank the chairman for
    yielding me the time.
        Mr. Self. The gentleman yields back.
        Is there any further discussion? Mr. Kean, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to voice my
    support for this vital piece of legislation and I want to thank
    my colleague Mr. Stanton from Arizona for his leadership on
    this matter.
        The recent judicial reform proposal that President Andre
    Manuel Lopez Obrador should give all of the United States great
    pause and concern for the bilateral United States-Mexico
    relationship. The proposed reforms are greatly concerning to
    the independence of the Mexican judiciary and potentially
    threaten critical aspects of the United States-Mexico-Canada
    Agreement, the USMCA. AMLO's overreach will impact the
    interests of American firms seeking to do business and invest
    in the Mexican economy. This is already being experienced by a
    constituent company of mine, Vulcan Materials.
        In May 2022, under the direction of the Mexican president,
    Vulcan's facilities on the Yucatan Peninsula were illegally
    shut down and is facing excorporation by the Mexican
    government.
        These unilateral decisions directly undermine the U.S.-
    Mexico relationship and the spirit of the USMCA. I hope that
    the government of incoming President-Elect Claudia Sheinbaum
    reconsiders these actions in favor of a positive and beneficial
    relationship that she reportedly wishes to have with the United
    States. I yield back my time.
        Mr. Self. The gentleman yields.
        Is there any future--further discussion?
        Seeing none, 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. 1435 as amended to the House with a favorable
    recommendations. 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. 9082, the Summit of
    the Americas Act.
        [The Bill H.R. 9082 follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Self. The bill was circulated in advance. The clerk
    will designate the bill.
        The Clerk. H.R. 9082, to direct the Secretary of State to
    host regular summits of the Americas and for other purposes.
        Mr. Self. Without objection, the first reading is dispensed
    with and the bill is considered read and open to amendment at
    any point.
        Without objection, the Kamlager-Dove 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.
        Is there any discussion on the bill? Representative
    Kamlager-Dove is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair and ranking member
    for bringing the Summit of the Americas Act to markup. And I
    want to thank Congresswoman Salazar and Castro--well,
    Congressman Castro for partnering with me to introduce this
    important legislation.
        There are 48 countries in the Western Hemisphere and each
    one of them is critical to promoting shared prosperity in our
    region, yet our own neighborhood is often the one we neglect
    the most. Luckily, the Summit of the Americas, which convenes
    every 3 years in cities across the region, provides an
    opportunity to give these relationships their due.
        The last summit meeting in Los Angeles in 2022 brought
    together heads of State, Members of Congress, business leaders,
    civil society organizations, and young people. It created space
    to make new connections and infuse fresh energy into our shared
    goals.
        My bill institutionalizes the Summit of the Americas
    process and shows our partners that the United States is
    committed to consistent engagement with Latin America and the
    Caribbean. This bill would also ensure that we are reliably
    implementing summit outcomes. The summit cannot just mean a
    repackaging of existing initiatives or empty rhetoric with now
    follow through. It should be a strategic opportunity to
    meaningfully enhance cooperation with our partners and advance
    shared hemispheric priorities.
        Finally, this bill institutionalizes the City Summit of the
    Americas as part of the Summit of the Americas process. The
    city summit is new and high-value component of our regional
    diplomacy that convenes city and State leaders to discuss the
    best practices on the issues facing their local constituencies.
    These exchanges highlight the shared challenges and
    opportunities we face as a region and reinforces the simple
    truth that our destinies are linked.
        It also positions the United States to provide the very
    expertise and solutions that can make us a genuinely
    constructive and indispensable actor in the region. Critically
    the city summit enables valuable relationship building with
    rising Latin American and Caribbean leaders.
        Claudia Sheinbaum, who will be inaugurated as the president
    of Mexico next week, attended the city summit last December in
    her role as mayor of Mexico City. That alone is compelling
    proof of concept for the importance of this sub-national
    diplomatic forum.
        The Summit of the Americas Act will upgrade and invigorate
    U.S. engagement with our Latin American and Caribbean partners
    and I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair and ranking member, and I yield back.
        Mr. Self. The gentlelady yields back.
        Seeing no further discussion, there being no further
    discussion, and I see none, 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.R. 9082 as amended to the House with a
    favorable recommendation. All those in favor, signify by saying
    aye?
        All those opposed, 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. The staff is authorized to make any technical and
    conforming changes.
        The committee stands in recess until 4 p.m. when we will
    reconvene and take votes.
        [Recess.]
        Chairman McCaul. The committee will come to order. The
    committee postponed further proceedings on the roll call vote
    on Amendment Number 1 offered by Representative Meeks to the
    report recommending that the House of Representatives find
    Antony Blinken, Secretary, U.S. Department of State, in
    contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with the subpoena
    duly issued by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on which the
    noes had prevailed by voice vote.
        The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment.
    Members will vote using electronic voting system. The clerk
    will open the vote.
        The clerk will close the vote and report the tally.
        The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 25. The noes are 26.
        Chairman McCaul. The noes have it. The amendment is not
    agreed to.
        The committee postponed further proceedings on the roll
    call vote on Amendment Number 2 offered by Representative Meeks
    to the report, which the noes have prevailed by voice vote. The
    question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment. Members will
    use 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 25. The noes are 26.
        Chairman McCaul. The noes have it, and the amendment is not
    agreed to.
        There being no further amendments, I move that the
    committee favorably report the report recommending that the
    House of Representatives find Antony Blinken, Secretary, U.S.
    Department of State, in contempt of Congress for refusal to
    comply with the subpoena duly issued by the Committee on
    Foreign Affairs to the House.
        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. Motion
    agreed to. 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 26. The noes are 25.
        Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
        Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
    table. The report is ordered favorably reported and staff is
    authorized to make any technical and conforming changes.
        The committee postponed further proceedings on reporting
    H.Res. 1449, condemning the global rise of antisemitism and
    calling upon countries and international bodies to counter
    antisemitism favorably to the House, in which the ayes prevail
    by voice.
        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.
        Keith Self. Mr. Self?
        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 50. The noes are
    zero.
        Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it. Without objection, the
    motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Staff is authorized
    to make any changes.
        This concludes consideration of the measures noticed by the
    committee today. I want to thank all the members. The committee
    stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]