[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]