    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                     ______

                           MARKUP OF VARIOUS MEASURES

    =======================================================================

                                     MARKUP

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 April 9, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-13

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

           GRAPHIC(S) 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
     60-515 PDF            WASHINGTON : 2025

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                        BRIAN J. MAST, Florida, Chairman
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York,
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey         Ranking Member
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           BRAD SHERMAN, California
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    DARRELL ISSA, California             WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
    TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              AMI BERA, California
    MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee             JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    ANDY BARR, Kentucky                  DINA TITUS, Nevada
    RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 TED LIEU, California
    YOUNG KIM, California                SARA JACOBS, California
    MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida        SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
    BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan                  Florida
    AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       GREG STANTON, Arizona
        American Samoa                   JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
    JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    THOMAS H. KEAN, JR, New Jersey       JIM COSTA, California
    MICHAEL LAWLER, New York             GABE AMO, Rhode Island
    CORY MILLS, Florida                  KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
    RICHARD McCORMICK, Georgia           PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    KEITH SELF, Texas                    GEORGE LATIMER, New York
    RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana               JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI Jr, Maryland
    JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam                JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
    ANNA PAULINA LUNA, Florida           SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware
    JEFFERSON SHREVE, Indiana            BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina          MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania Q04
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
    RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania
                  James Langenderfer, Majority Staff Director
                     Sajit Gandhi, Minority Staff Director
                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------

                                REPRESENTATIVES

                                                                       Page
    Opening Statement of Chairman Brian Mast.........................     1
    Opening Statement of Ranking Member Gregory Meeks................     2

                              BILLS AND AMENDMENTS

    H.R.747..........................................................     4
    H.R. 1998........................................................    12
    H.R. 2635........................................................    20
    H.R. 2503........................................................    35
    H.R. 2619........................................................    49
    Amendment offered by Ms. Jacobs..................................    64
    H.R. 1422........................................................    69
    Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1422 by Mr.
      Lawler.........................................................    85
    Amendment in the nature of a substitute by Mr. Lawler............   101
    H.R. 2683........................................................   120
    Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R 2683 by Mr. Lawler   130
    H.R. 260.........................................................   141
    Amendment offered by Mr. Meeks...................................   151
    Amendment offered by Mr. Keating.................................   162
    Amendment offered by Ms. Kamlager-Dove...........................   166
    Amendment offered by Ms. Johnson.................................   171
    H.R. 2643........................................................   176

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................   192
    Hearing Minutes..................................................   194
    Hearing Attendance...............................................   195
    Markup Summary...................................................   196

                                     Votes

    To Report H.R. 2619..............................................   198
    To Report H.R.2683 as amended....................................   199
    Jacobs Amendment #24 to H.R. 2619................................   200
    Johnson Amendment #2 to H,R. 260.................................   201
    Meeks Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute #22 to H.R. 260....   202

                           MARKUP OF VARIOUS MEASURES

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, April 9, 2025

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

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
    2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian Mast (chairman
    of the committee) presiding.
        Chairman Mast. A quorum being present, the Committee on
    Foreign Affairs will come to order. The committee is meeting
    today for consideration of a number of bills. Before we begin
    that, we will start with the Pledge of Allegiance.
        All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
    of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
    Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
    all.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRIAN MAST

        Chairman Mast. The committee is meeting today for
    consideration of H.R. 747, To impose sanctions with respect to
    Chinese producers of synthetic opioids and opioid precursors,
    to hold Chinese officials accountable for the spread of illicit
    fentanyl, and for other purposes, introduced by Representative
    Barr.
        H.R. 1998, To require the imposition of sanctions with
    respect to foreign persons engaged in piracy and for other
    purposes, introduced by Representative Jackson of Illinois.
        H.R. 2635, To support the human rights of Uyghurs and
    members of other minority groups residing primarily in the
    Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and safeguard their distinct
    identity, and for other purposes, introduced by Representative
    Kim.
        H.R. 2619, To require a report on sanctions under the
    Robert Levinson Hostage Recovery and Hostage-Taking
    Accountability Act, and for other purposes; introduced by
    Representative Baumgartner.
        H.R. 1422, To impose sanctions with respect to persons
    engaged in logistical transactions and sanctions evasion
    relating to oil, gas, liquefied natural gas, and related
    petrochemical products from the Islamic Republic of Iran, and
    for other purposes, introduced by Representative Lawler.
        H.R. 2503, To require the development of a strategy to
    eliminate the availability to foreign adversaries of goods and
    technologies capable of supporting undersea cables, and for
    other purposes; introduced by Representative Kean.
        H.R. 2683, To provide for control of remote access of items
    under the Export Control Reform Act of 2018; introduced by
    Representative Lawler.
        H.R. 260, To require a strategy to oppose financial or
    material support by foreign countries and nongovernmental
    organizations to the Taliban, and for other purposes;
    introduced by Representative Burchett.
        H.R. 2643, To require the Secretary of State to submit an
    annual report to Congress regarding the ties between criminal
    gangs and political and economic elites in Haiti and impose
    sanctions on political and economic elites involved in such
    criminal activities; introduced by Ranking Member Meeks.
        The chair announces that requests for recorded votes may be
    rolled and I may recess at any point. Without objection, so
    ordered.
        Pursuant to House rules, I request that members have the
    opportunity to submit views for any committee report that may
    be produced on today's measures. Without objection, so ordered.
        I now recognize Ranking Member Meeks for any opening
    statement that he may have.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER GREGORY MEEKS

        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just before I turn to
    the en bloc, I want to raise an issue that I think should
    concern all of us on both sides of the aisle and that is our
    shared responsibility to conduct oversight of the agencies
    within our jurisdictions. Late last month, the administration
    notified us of its intent to reorganize USAID, an agency that
    it has already tried to gut. I have sent and despite sending
    repeated letters requesting more information, the State
    Department has failed to respond in a meaningful way. So I know
    that we may differ on how best to deliver foreign assistance,
    but we should all agree that Congress has a duty to conduct
    oversight. And that is why every Democrat on this committee has
    signed a letter asking you to call Secretary Rubio to testify
    publicly on this proposed reorganization and to also hold the
    notifications to all of our requests for information are
    satisfied.
        I am hoping, Mr. Chairman, that we can work together and we
    can commit that we will be bringing the Secretary forward to
    testify sometime in the very, very near future.
        Chairman Mast. Does the Ranking Member yield back?
        Mr. Meeks. I just wanted--I hope that we can work on that
    so that we can get that done.
        Chairman Mast. I will respond when you are finished.
        Mr. Meeks. So thank you again. I support the four bills en
    bloc. Oh, they haven't called the bills up yet.
        Chairman Mast. Not quite yet.
        Mr. Meeks. I will wait. I yield back at this particular
    time.
        Chairman Mast. That was just your opening statement. Very
    good. I now recognize myself for an opening statement and
    simply to respond to the Ranking Member, I know Secretary Rubio
    looks forward to coming before our committee. We have already
    had Pete Marocco, Director of the Office of Foreign Assistance
    right here in this room before our committee and these and
    other individuals look forward to joining us as well, to speak
    about the wastage, fraud, and abuse that they have been rooting
    out of agencies and the reconstruction of these agencies for
    the purpose of creating the best possible command and control
    for any of these agencies to make sure the maximum
    accountability for any U.S. taxpayer dollar being sent out the
    door by the Department of State or any underlying agencies for
    the purpose of going to foreign countries, foreign NGO's,
    foreign nonprofit, foreign terrorist organizations, or foreign
    anything else.
        In that, we will now return to consideration--we will begin
    consideration of an en bloc package of bills. Pursuant to
    notice, I now call up the measures and their amendments that
    were circulated in advance which, without objection, will be
    considered en bloc and each measure is considered as read and
    the amendments to each are considered as read and are agreed
    to. And without objection after remarks, the committee will
    vote to order measures--the measures favorably, reported en
    bloc, as amended, if amended. And each measure, so amended,
    shall be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a
    substitute. Reading that, I always feel like I am in a Monty
    Python movie because it uses the word amendment so many times.
        The measures en bloc packages are, as I already stated,
    H.R. 747, to oppose sanctions with respect to Chinese producers
    of synthetic opioids and opioid precursors, and to hold Chinese
    officials accountable for the spread of illicit fentanyl.
        H.R. 1998, To require the imposition of sanctions with
    respect to foreign persons engaged in piracy and for other
    purposes.
        H.R. 2635, To support the human rights of Uyghurs and
    members of other minority groups residing primarily in the
    Xinjiang Province and for other purposes.
        H.R. 2503, To require the development of a strategy to
    eliminate the availability to foreign adversaries of goods and
    technologies capable of supporting undersea cables, and for
    other purposes.
        [The Bills H.R. 747, H.R. 1998, H.R. 2635, and H.R. 2503
    follows:]

    GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Chairman Mast. I would like to recognize Representative
    Meeks again for any opening statement that he may have on the
    en bloc package.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, I support
    the four bills on the en bloc, and I want to thank you and the
    sponsors of each of the bills for working with me to reach a
    bipartisan consensus, working together in that regard.
        I do want to highlight two bills in the en bloc. First, let
    me acknowledge Representative Jackson's piracy bill, H.R. 1998,
    attacks on maritime shipping endangers innocent lives, raise of
    goods, and destabilizes local communities. Unfortunately, they
    have become more common. Ships traversing the Red Sea and the
    Gulf of Aden now face two major threats from the Houthis, who
    continue to perpetuate piracy on the high seas and from Somalia
    pirates, who are plundering and pillaging at rates unseen in a
    decade. Sanctioning pirates makes sense and I think
    Representative Jackson for his leadership on this bill.
        I am also a proud cosponsor of Representative Kim's Uyghur
    policy at H.R. 2635. This committee has played an important
    leadership role in pushing for the protection of Uyghurs and
    other minorities in Xinjiang in the face of genocide and forced
    labor. But our work isn't done because Beijing's repression
    isn't done. This is all a good bipartisan bill and I hope that
    it serves as a clear signal to the Trump administration about
    what Congress wants because thus far, the Trump administration
    has cut congressionally authorized programs that support human
    rights in China, including for projects focused on empowering
    Chinese and Uyghur-related diaspora groups to combat
    transnational repression and promote religious freedom. And
    despite the fact that Radio Free Asia helped break the story
    about Chinese program of detention, re-education, and forced
    labor in Xinjiang, this administration is now trying to shutter
    Radio Free Asia as we speak.
        So I thank Representative Kim and Representative Bera for
    their leadership on this bill and with that, I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Ranking Member Meeks. So any
    other members seek recognition?
        Any Republicans seek recognition first? Representative
    Perry is recognized.
        Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know--I kind of
    am seeking recognition to see if I can get some questions
    answered regarding H.R. 1998 which is to require the imposition
    of sanctions with respect to foreign persons engaged in piracy
    and for other purposes. I just don't know mechanically how that
    is going to happen, and so that is why I am seeking some
    answers. I don't think anybody on the committee left of right
    supports the piracy generally conducted by the Houthis or those
    associated with the Houthis, but I don't know if we know these
    people's names. I don't know if they have anything to sanction.
    I don't know if we are going to sanction their john boat, or
    their flipflops, or their t-shirts, or their AK-47. I don't
    know if we are going to sanction people in Iran that are
    supporting the Houthis, so I don't know, Mr. Chairman, if you
    will engage in a colloquy. Do you understand how this sanction
    regime is going to work? I am all for ending the piracy, I just
    don't literally understand mechanically how this is going to
    happen.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Perry. I am free
    to engage with you.
        Mr. Perry. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Mast. Is Representative Jackson here right now? He
    will be able to obviously speak in a moment about it, but
    obviously, this goes to the administration to go out there and
    look at any alien that the Secretary deems under the Secretary
    of Homeland Secretary has in need of being sanctioned. Right? I
    mean that is the obvious part of this. The Secretaries of these
    administrations through our intelligence will go out there and
    figure out exactly which individuals, which quite often will be
    let's say classified information because of the sources and
    methods by which they find these individuals, but just like we
    are looking at the targeting of individuals connectedly, they
    will seek individuals in the same way to target with sanctions
    that maybe won't be targeted connectedly. And so to say that in
    the best way that I can, not in a classified environment. I
    hope that answers your question.
        Mr. Perry. So to be clear, would this be sanctions on
    people supporting piracy that aren't necessarily involved in
    the piracy itself?
        Chairman Mast. I think this should be looked at as being
    written in an open way to target anybody that has been a part
    of these piracy activities.
        Mr. Perry. Okay.
        Chairman Mast. In any way, shape, or form that the
    administration can say they were financing, they were providing
    intelligence, they were looking for the targets of opportunity,
    they were a part of the network of conducting attacks of piracy
    on the targets of opportunity in any way, shape, or form, I
    would consider that the scope of this policy.
        Mr. Perry. All right, and I would yield to Representative
    Jackson.
        Chairman Mast. I will recognize him in a minute, if you are
    yielding back.
        Mr. Perry. I am yielding my----
        Chairman Mast. Unless you are trying to have a colloquy
    with----
        Mr. Perry. I would like to have a colloquy with Mr.
    Jackson.
        Chairman Mast. I think we still have--is the clock going? I
    don't even see the clock going right now.
        Mr. Perry. I am not in charge of the clock, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Mast. Very good. Somebody didn't start the clock,
    so we will make sure we start that from now on and
    Representative Jackson is recognized.
        Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Thank you, Congressman Perry and
    thank you to Congressman Mast, the chairman. Due to the nature
    of this, this is classified information, and it has to deal
    with primary and secondary sources that are fueling these
    organizations that are making these attacks, so I would leave
    it at that. But these came out of briefings. I yield back.
        Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you for the questions, both of you,
    and the comments, both of you. Do any other members seek
    recognition?
        Representative Amo.
        Mr. Amo. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
    I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the
    Uyghur Policy Act of 2025. I am proud to co-sponsor this piece
    of legislation. For decades, Uyghurs have been a politically
    persecuted minority by the Chinese Communist Party. But
    starting in 2001, the CCP ramped up its authoritarian
    crackdowns, stripping away rights, separating families, and
    subjecting Uyghurs to inhumane conditions just because of their
    culture, heritage, and religion.
        Professor Ilham Tohti, one of the many Uyghur victims
    suffering at the hands of Xi's regime. Professor Tohti is an
    economist who has spent his life focused on promoting peaceful
    relations and mutual understanding. Yet, in a cruel twist of
    fate, he has been horrifically punished for his work. Since
    2014, he has been detained as a political prisoner. He has had
    no contact with his family or loved ones since 2017.
        In Congress, I am proud to be an advocate for Professor
    Tohti on Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission elevating his story
    and pushing for his release. It is why I wholeheartedly support
    the Uyghur Policy Act to help Professor Tohti and other Uyghur
    prisoners just like him.
        This bipartisan bill will direct the Secretary of State to
    work toward the release of political prisoners and hold the
    Chinese Government accountable for their human rights abuses
    against the Uyghurs. We must speak out against the ongoing
    human rights abuses in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous region.
    This bill is an important step toward fulfilling that
    obligation and fighting back against China's oppression.
        I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
    I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Any other representatives seek recognition?
        Representative Barr?
        Mr. Barr. Thank you. I move to strike the last word and
    speak in support of my legislation, H.R. 747, included in the
    en bloc. This bill is titled The Stop Chinese Fentanyl Act.
        Mr. Chairman, the fentanyl crisis, as you know, is one of
    the largest threats to our country and continues to plague so
    many of our families and neighbors across the United States.
    Drug overdoses are the leading cause of death for Americans age
    18 to 45 and fentanyl is responsible for nearly 70 percent of
    these deaths. Deaths involving synthetic opioids continued to
    rise in 2022, which 73,838 overdose deaths. Each one of these
    is a terrible tragedy. From September 2023 to August 2024,
    57,997 Americans died of an opioid overdose. In 2023, 1,984
    Kentuckians lost their lives to a drug overdose. Sadly, I have
    met with many of my constituents who have lost loved ones to
    this epidemic.
        Unfortunately, this scourge has spread with the help, the
    malign help of our greatest strategic threat, the People's
    Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party. In just the
    past 2 years, the Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC, at
    Treasury, sanctioned more than 300 targets for drug
    trafficking. We know that China has historically been and
    remains the primary source of fentanyl in global circulation
    through the production of precursor chemicals and outsourcing
    final production to cartel laboratories, mainly in Mexico and
    then exploitation of our open southern border over the last 4
    years. That is why it is paramount to not only secure our
    southern border but that this committee pass my legislation
    being considered here today, H.R. 747, The Stop Chinese
    Fentanyl Act, which passed the House on suspension last
    Congress.
        My bill amends the Fentanyl Sanctions Act to expand the
    definition of ``foreign opioid trafficker'' to include certain
    Chinese entities and government officials who have failed to
    take steps to prevent opioid trafficking, subjecting them to
    sanctions. This bill requires the President to determine
    whether the heads of the Chinese National Narcotics Control
    Commission, the Ministry of Public Security, the General
    Administration of Customs, and the national medical Products
    Administration of the Government of the People's Republic of
    China are foreign opioid traffickers and we suspect many are.
        We must attack the production of fentanyl by targeting the
    source of precursors in China. Make no mistake, Chinese
    producers of synthetic opioids and opioid precursors and senior
    government and Chinese political officials' culpability does
    not end when their precursor products land in Mexico or
    illegally cross our southern border. We must look at every step
    of fentanyl's deadly supply chain and hold our adversaries
    accountable. This is a real, urgent, and massive national
    security crisis. The threat from China is multi-faceted, but
    there are entities and persons in China who are literally
    complicit in poisoning and killing Americans. This bill targets
    the sources of the fentanyl surge and I encourage my colleagues
    to support this legislation once again in a bipartisan way and
    I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Barr. Do any other
    members seek recognition?
        Representative Dean is recognized.
        Mr. Dean. Thank you, Chairman Mast and Ranking Member
    Meeks. I, too, rise in support of Congressman Barr's
    legislation, H.R. 747, the Stop Chinese Fentanyl Act of 2025. I
    think it is a very aptly named numbered bill because I have for
    a long time called what we are suffering here in this country a
    jetliner a day of souls who die, who perish every single day,
    hundreds of Americans die every single day in my State of
    Pennsylvania, just like your State and everybody else's. It is
    a jetliner a day and we have to do everything we possibly can
    to land that plane. That is why I thank you, Representative
    Barr for this.
        The opioid crisis continues to ravage my community. Like
    you, Representative Barr, I have been to too many funerals. I
    have visited with too many families who are struggling with
    young people, not so young people, struggling with addiction.
    As some of you may know, it is a deeply personal issue for me.
    My son, Harry, was addicted to opioids and is now by the grace
    of God and his own hard work, been in recovery for more than 12
    years and is helping others find recovery and also helping
    others who are dealing with grievous losses.
        The numbers have gone down recently, I do want to note
    that. We went from about 110,000 people dying of overdose a
    year in this country. Think of that number, 110,000 people a
    year. In the most recent 12-month period, it is down to about
    84,000 a year, but that number is so cold. It is 84,000 people
    dying a year of overdose. We have to continue to find out what
    is going right that the numbers are coming down, but how do we
    bring that number all the way down so that communities and
    families are not ravaged by these losses.
        We need to address the crisis from every angle, from
    ensuring those suffering from substance use disorder have
    access to needed healthcare. In my State of Pennsylvania,
    through Medicaid, 100,000 people are working toward their own
    recovery through Medicaid. May we not cut Medicaid and the
    support that they need to thrive because you can thrive in
    recovery as my son is.
        We need to target all parts of the supply chain which this
    bill does by sanctioning entities that produce synthetic opioid
    precursors, drop them down here in the United States, then ship
    them to Mexico only to come back as poison for our community.
    So I appreciate Congressman Barr's leadership on this bill and
    on this issue. I encourage all my colleagues to join me in
    supporting H.R. 747, may we land this plane. I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Representative Kim is recognized.
        Mrs. Kim. Thank you, Chairman Mast, and Ranking Member
    Meeks for holding today's markup and for considering my
    bipartisan bill, H.R. 2635, The Uyghur Policy Act. I also want
    to thank my colleagues, Representative Ami Bera and again
    Ranking Member Meeks, for joining me in introducing this bill
    as original co-sponsors and I would like to also thank
    Representative Amo for speaking in support of this bill and
    sponsoring it as well.
        Under the Chinese Communist Party or CCP, Uyghurs and other
    ethnic minorities have been victims to genocide in modern day
    concentration camps simply because of their linguistic,
    cultural, and religious identity. Meanwhile, Uyghur human
    rights advocates and family members of detainees are
    intimidated and harassed by the CCP's transnational repression
    campaigns abroad. The fact that this happens here on U.S. soil
    is unacceptable.
        The Uyghur Policy Act directs the Secretary of State to
    lead and coordinate all U.S. Government policies, programs, and
    projects that support Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious
    minority groups in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous region. It also
    ends to protect individuals in the Uyghur diaspora community
    who are subject to the CCP's transnational repression. The
    Uyghur Policy Act passed the House last Congress with broad
    bipartisan support. The version we are considering today has
    common-sense edits that also protect Uyghur advocates and
    diaspora members outside of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous
    region and creates a mechanism for them to report incidents of
    transnational repression. It also incorporates technical
    changes from the standard version of the bill.
        Without authorizing any new funding, the Uyghur Policy Act
    will equip the U.S. with the tools needed to support the basic
    human rights and distinct identities of Uyghurs and other
    ethnic minorities who are subject to the CCP's inhumane
    treatment.
        I urge my colleagues to support this bill and also the en
    bloc that I see many of the bills including the Chinese
    Fentanyl Act of 2025 introduced by Representative Barr. Thank
    you so much and I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Mast. Do any other members seek recognition?
        Representative Kean is recognized.
        Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin by
    thanking Chairman Mast for his leadership on this issue and for
    working alongside me to address these concerns. The Undersea
    Cable Control Act, H.R. 2503, is a targeted, bipartisan effort
    to protect the U.S. national security and technology by
    limiting access to undersea cable infrastructure from foreign
    adversaries, especially, the Chinese Communist Party. Undersea
    cables carry 99 percent of trans-oceanic digital traffic,
    enabling trillions in daily financial transactions, according
    to the International Cable Protection Committee, and adding
    $649 billion to the U.S. economy in 2019 alone. They are the
    digital backbone for the modern global economy and they are
    vulnerable.
        This bill directs Departments of Commerce and State to
    develop a strategy to eliminate foreign adversaries' access to
    key technologies used in undersea cables. It also strengthens
    our export controls, requires transparency in public reporting,
    and fosters cooperation with allies to safeguard our standards
    and our infrastructure.
        I urge my colleagues to support the Undersea Cable Control
    Act and I thank this committee for considering this important
    piece of legislation. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Mast. Do any other members seek recognition? I now
    recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        I rise in support of this en bloc package and I want to
    thank each of the members for their work on these bills on both
    sides of the aisle. It is important work. I know it is
    thoughtful and it is done with a great deal of deliberation.
    H.R. 747, To Stop Chinese Fentanyl, it is important that we go
    out there and as we look at laws, we pay attention to the
    semantics of what we are doing and by expanding the definition
    of who is identified as a foreign opioid trafficker, we are
    doing something that better enables us to go out there and stop
    the spread of these opioids across our borders and to combat
    every individual that is a part of moving these opioids across
    our borders and distributing them, manufacturing them, selling
    them. It is an important part of this process for us. And I
    applaud the work on that piece of legislation.
        For H.R. 2543, The Underseas Cable Control Act, it is
    common sense for the United States of America to prevent
    foreign adversaries from gaining access to items necessary for
    supporting undersea cable projects. We don't support our
    adversaries and if we are supporting our adversaries, then we
    are being stupid about policy, so I applaud this piece of
    legislation that is making sure that that is not the case for
    the United States of America as it relates to undersea cables.
        H.R. 2635, The Uyghur Policy Act of 2025. It chastises
    China for the continued oppression of Uyghur Muslims and it
    requires them to cease all government-sponsored crackdowns,
    imprisonments, and detentions of people throughout their aimed
    areas and repressing these ethnic, cultural, and political and
    religious identities. As we look at China and we look at other
    countries across the globe, trying to decide whether they want
    to align with the United States of America and our allies or
    China and their allies, this should be a laughable idea for any
    nation across Latin America or Africa or Europe or anywhere
    else that they look at the globe and they say I want to align
    with China and Xi and Russia and Putin and North Korea and Kim
    and the Ayatollahs of Iran versus aligning with the United
    States of America and NATO and EU and Israel and Australia and
    Japan and our allies and the lifestyles that the world can
    clearly see our populations are afforded versus what is
    afforded by the governments of countries like China and the
    repression that they conduct on their own people to include the
    imprisonment and the detention of these ethnic and cultural
    groups. And so I applaud the work on this piece of legislation
    as well.
        And the final piece of legislation I will speak on this en
    bloc package, The Sanction Sea Pirates Act of 2025. It needs to
    be the policy of the United States of America to deter and
    combat piracy. It has affected us for many years and this piece
    of legislation authorizes the President to sanction any foreign
    persons, any, that is the important word here, that knowingly
    engage in piracy off the coast of Somalia or in the Gulf of
    Aden. That is a worthy cause for the United States of America
    considering the way that we have been affected by piracy
    throughout those waters.
        And again, I just want to applaud each of the members for
    their work on these pieces of legislation and there being no--
    do any other members seek recognition, first of all? Very good.
    There being no further discussion, does any member with to
    offer to an amendment to the en bloc package?
        There being no amendments, the committee will proceed to
    consider the noticed items en bloc. Pursuant to the previous
    order, the question occurs on the measures en bloc, as amended,
    if amended.
        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
    measures considered en bloc are 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 the previous order of the committee, each
    measure is ordered favorably reported, as amended, if amended,
    and each measure, so amended, shall be reported as a single
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 2619, No Pay Days
    for Hostage Takers Act.
        [The Bill H.R. 2619 follows:]
      GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Chairman Mast. The bill was circulated in advance and the
    Clerk shall designate the bill.
        The Clerk. H.R. 2619, to require a report on sanctions----
        Chairman Mast. 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?
        Representative Amo is recognized.
        Mr. Amo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Iran's hostage taking
    diplomacy is an affront to international law, respectable State
    conduct, and human decency. There must be consequences for such
    actions and a strategy to combat this malign policy and bring
    our people home.
        Balancing these equities is not easy and it is not simple.
    That is why we need a plan and that is why I support this bill.
    Look, there are some things that I would like to see changed in
    this bill. I am worried that some language in the text would
    undermine long standing treaty obligations that the United
    States has upheld for decades under both Democratic and
    Republican administrations.
        I want to make sure that we uphold our sovereign
    obligations during this period of uncertainty and unsteadiness.
    We also need to balance freedom to travel with national
    interests.
        When we negotiated this bill last Congress, Ranking Member
    Meeks secured some changes to the text which did not
    necessarily fix all of his concerns, but represented a
    reasonable compromise for achieving bipartisan legislation. And
    so we look forward to further discussing this bill with its new
    sponsor, Republican Baumgartner, alongside Chairman Mast, and
    will vote yes to advance this legislation at this time. I yield
    back.
        Chairman Mast. Do any other members seek recognition?
        Representative Baumgartner is recognized.
        Mr. Baumgartner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's be clear.
    This bill is about stopping the business model of hostage
    taking and elicit arms dealing. Iran is running a criminal
    enterprise, kidnap Americans, hold them for years, and then
    cash in when the deal is made. Every time we send money, even
    with conditions, we tell them that the scam works. Well, that
    stops now. This bill ends this practice and we say something
    else loud and clear. If you are a terrorist or a WMD
    proliferator under U.S. sanctions, you don't get to stroll into
    New York and play diplomat. That kind of hypocrisy ends here.
        I am proud to stand with colleagues on both sides of the
    aisle who know that American lives aren't bargaining chips and
    that real deterrence means real consequences. I thank you for
    hearing this bill, Mr. Chair. And with that, I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you, Representative Baumgartner. Do
    any other members seek recognition?
        Seeing none, I recognize myself for 5 minutes. I want to
    thank Representative Baumgartner for his work on this piece of
    legislation. It is important, one, to just acknowledge what is
    taking place, provide findings and statements of policy
    acknowledging what the Iranian regime's long history of hostage
    taking and wrongful detention of U.S. nationals has done, when
    it has taken place, how it has taken place, and as a result,
    recognized what we need to do to combat that.
        Various sections of this bill I find specifically
    important. Section 6, which requires the President to provide
    to Congress an itemized list of blocked or frozen assets
    belonging to Iranian persons globally with a valuation of more
    than $10,000. I look forward to reading that list. Section 7,
    which urges the administration to carry out coordinated
    international efforts to find, freeze, seize, and confiscate
    assets of individuals and entities who have been sanctioned for
    involvement in Iran's hostage taking. This is how we fight
    back. This is one of the ways, one of the tools in our tool
    chest to fight back and I look forward to seeing this piece of
    legislation pass.
        I will conclude my comments there and ask if there is any
    further discussion on the bill since I have spoken. Do you have
    an amendment? I heard that, but we are not quite to amendments
    yet, so we will get to you.
        There being no further discussion on the bill, the
    committee will move for consideration of amendments. Does any
    member wish to offer an amendment?
        Representative Jacobs is recognized.
        Ms. Jacobs. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
        [The Amendment offered by Ms. Jacobs follows:]
       GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Chairman Mast. The Clerk shall distribute the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2619 offered by Ms. Jacobs of
    California.
        Chairman Mast. Without objection, further reading of the
    amendment is dispensed with. The Representative is recognized
    for 5 minutes on the amendment.
        Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am incredibly proud
    that San Diego has a strong, vibrant diaspora community
    including from Iran. Annually, tens of thousands of Americans
    travel to Iran to reunite with relatives to celebrate
    milestones and to maintain the familial bonds that distance and
    politics stretch, but never break. That is why I find Section 9
    of H.R. 2619 which says that the Secretary of State should
    invalidate U.S. passports for travel to and/or through Iran to
    be so concerning. Restricting the freedom of movement of
    ordinary families in the U.S. doesn't make any sense and
    doesn't strengthen our national security. The State Department
    has already recognized and warned Americans of the risks of
    traveling to Iran, like kidnapping, detention or instability.
        Instead of imposing punitive restrictions on our citizens,
    we should enhance our strategies to protect them. Rather than
    an outright ban, my amendment would direct the State Department
    to report to Congress the current dangers associated with
    travel to Iran, assess the efficacy of existing advisories, and
    propose enhanced measures for communicating risks and
    protecting our citizens abroad. I urge my colleagues to support
    this amendment which uphold our core values while working to
    protect Americans abroad. I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. The gentlelady yields back. Does any member
    seek recognition?
        Representative Baumgartner is recognized.
        Mr. Baumgartner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I recommend that we
    oppose this amendment. The U.S. Secretary of State has the
    authority to restrict travel based on risks. This is precisely
    what we have seen done across both Republican and Democratic
    administrations for countries with similar track records of
    hostage taking like North Korea. These authorities are clearly
    outlined in the findings this amendment seeks to cut.
        I oppose this amendment which clearly seeks to downplay the
    regime's long standing track record of taking American citizens
    hostage. The Iranian regime has threatened to take even more
    hostages as tensions with U.S. over the nuclear program rise.
    Our government needs to be proactive to address this risk, not
    reactive and we should oppose this amendment. I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. The representative yields back. Do any other
    members seek recognition?
        Representative Amo is recognized.
        Mr. Amo. Chairman, I support Representative Jacob's
    amendment. This amendment addresses the concerns I previously
    shared about restrictions on Americans' freedom of movement
    where the--were the Secretary of State to take the step to
    invalidate U.S. passports for travel to Iran. I appreciate the
    serious risks that U.S. travelers to Iran may encounter and
    have welcomed the State Department's Level 4 travel advisory,
    warning Americans not to travel to Iran due to the risk of
    kidnapping, the arbitrary arrest, and detention of U.S.
    citizens, and the danger of civil unrest.
        I also welcome efforts to expand indicators in travel
    advisories specifically related to the risk of wrongful
    detention abroad, but it is not a small thing to potentially
    limit the freedom of movement of thousands of Americans
    including Iranian-Americans with loved ones in Iran by
    invalidating U.S. passports for travel to Iran. So I support
    Representative Jacobs' amendment which asks only for precisely
    what we need here, a more detailed understanding of the
    imminent danger to public health or physical safety of U.S.
    travelers to Iran, what the State Department is doing to
    communicate travel risks, and what more it needs to do so
    effectively. I yield.
        Chairman Mast. The gentleman yields back. Do any other
    members seek recognition?
        I recognize myself. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
    Section 9 specifically of the bill proposed maintains authority
    to restrict the use of United States passports for travel to
    use in countries or areas that the Secretary has deemed is a
    country or area in which there is an imminent danger to the
    public health and safety of United States' travelers. This is
    something that in 2017, the Secretary of State declared the
    United States passports invalid for travel to in North Korea.
    This was reaffirmed for North Korea in 2023. It is the sense of
    Congress that the Secretary of State should declare United
    States passports invalid for travel to, in, and through Iran
    due to the imminent dangers that we know exist and that are
    fluid on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. We see these
    threats not going away, but certainly morphing on a daily
    basis. And we see that certainly as demonstrated as a result of
    the individuals detained there. There is absolutely imminent
    threat and I do again say that I rise in opposition to this
    amendment. I yield back the balance of my time to myself, I
    guess.
        Is there any further discussion on this amendment? All
    right. Thank you. There being no further discussion, the
    question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative
    Jacobs. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, signify by saying no. No.
        In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it----
        Ms. Jacobs. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Mast. And the amendment is not agreed to.
        Ms. Jacobs. I request a roll call vote.
        Chairman Mast. A roll call vote has been requested.
        Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote
    will be postponed.
        Are there any further amendments?
        There being no further amendments, further proceedings on
    this measure are postponed.
        Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 1422, the Enhanced
    Iran Sanctions Act of 2025.
        The bill was circulated in advance and the clerk shall
    designate the bill.
        The Clerk. ``H.R. 1422, To impose sanctions with respect to
    persons engaged in logistical transactions and''----
        Chairman Mast. Without objection, the first reading is
    dispensed with and the bill is considered read and open to
    amendment at any point.
        [The bill H.R. 1422 follows:]
       GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Chairman Mast. Without objection, the Lawler amendment in
    the nature of a substitute, circulated to members in advance,
    shall be considered as read and will be treated as the original
    text for purposes of amendment.
        [The amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
    Lawler follows:]
    GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Chairman Mast. Is there any discussion on this bill?
        Mr. Lawler. Yes. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Mast. Representative Lawler is recognized.
        Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Iranian oil trade and regime's massive profits from it
    must be shut down immediately. Iran has made billions of
    dollars from its oil trade with revenues skyrocketing due to
    the Biden administration's failure to enforce meaningful
    sanctions. Under 4 years of President Biden alone, Iran brought
    in more than $200 billion in oil profits.
        Let me be clear: Iran's oil revenues directly finance its
    brutal oppression at home, Iranian enrichment and missile
    development programs, and its proxy terrorism across the Middle
    East and around the globe. This money flows to the world's most
    dangerous terrorists in the Middle East and around the world,
    including Hamas, the PIJ, the Houthis, and more.
        Last week, witnesses testified before this committee that
    the IRGC and Quds Force control nearly half of Iran's oil
    exports. This clearly demonstrates the close ties between
    Iran's oil industry and its proxy terror operations. And if I
    have anything to say about it, this revenue stream will be
    terminated.
        My bill before us today, the Enhanced Iran Sanctions Act,
    will give the Trump administration the tools it needs to end
    the Iranian oil trade once and for all. It presents enablers of
    this trade with a clear choice: stop doing business with
    Iranian oil or lose access to U.S. dollars, our markets, and
    all the benefits that come along with that access.
        This legislation places secondary sanctions on additional
    entities enabling Iran's oil exports, including foreign banks
    facilitating transactions; insurers backing tankers
    transporting Iranian oil; shipping registries, and pipeline
    developers.
        We are determined to dismantle this illicit trade from
    every angle. Iran's oil trade survives only because a network
    of enablers chooses profit over principle, willingly supporting
    a regime that sponsors terrorism. This bill ensures their days
    are numbered.
        Without these enablers, the regime's oil operation will
    collapse, and that's what we're counting on. This bill makes
    clear it's U.S. policy to rigorously enforce sanctions against
    all entities involved in the illicit oil trade, and it will be
    a huge step to get there and make this policy a reality.
        I strongly support this bill because it's essential to
    fully implement our maximum pressure campaign against Iran. I'm
    proud to have worked on this bipartisan legislation alongside
    my colleague and Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee
    Ranking Member Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, and urge all of my
    colleagues to vote yes on this bill today.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. The gentleman yields back.
        Is there any further discussion on the bill?
        Representative Meeks is recognized.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I support the ANS by Representative Lawler. You know, in a
    bipartisan way, this committee is acutely aware of the
    nefarious activities of Iran and the need to starve them of the
    funding required to operate their illicit nuclear program and
    support their terrorist proxies.
        With Iran so close to having enough highly enriched uranium
    for multiple nuclear bombs, we must move quickly. We know that
    China is helping Iran by purchasing Iranian oil and gas,
    despite current primary sanctions.
        This legislation bolsters current law by tactically
    increasing the scope of sanctions to address ongoing Iran-China
    sanctions evasion by adding authorities to sanction a bank or
    foreign financial institutions, insurer provider, flagging
    registry, pipeline construction, or operation facility for
    liquified natural gas that supports this illegal trade.
        I would like to thank the bill's sponsor, Mr. Lawler, for
    working with us to make this a responsible sanctions package by
    including a national security waiver, a humanitarian waiver,
    and a waiver for the safety of a ship's crew. And I ask this
    committee to help us maintain these provisions as the
    legislation moves through a future conference process.
        Again, I support this amendment in the nature of a
    substitute to H.R. 1422 and ask for its passage, and I yield
    the balance of my time.
        Chairman Mast. The Representative yields back.
        Do any other members seek recognition?
        Representative Cherfilus-McCormick is recognized.
        Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for
    considering my bipartisan bill H.R. 1422, the Enhanced Iran
    Sanctions Act. I also want to thank Congressman Lawler for
    partnering with me in advancing this bipartisan bill.
        One of the main tools to help curb Iran's development of
    nuclear weapons and its continued funding of its terrorist
    proxies is sanctions. The United States must take all necessary
    measures to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and
    to halt its support for terrorism.
        The Enhanced Iran Sanctions Act strengthens sanctions on
    foreign entities enabling Iran's illicit oil trade. This
    legislation is about protecting American interests, defending
    our allies, and standing firm against a regime that threatens
    global security, but it also is a statement of our values. We
    believe in freedom, in democracy, and in the right of people
    everywhere to live life without fear of State violence.
        This is not about abandoning democracy or diplomacy. On the
    contrary, we know that diplomacy is strongest when backed by
    leverage. This bill helps restore that leverage.
        We also ensure that this legislation includes humanitarian
    protections because we do not and will not punish the Iranian
    people for the actions of their government.
        This is a targeted approach that strikes at the heart of
    the regime's ability to fund terror and repression without
    closing the door to engagement, if and when Iran is ready for
    that course.
        This bipartisan legislation will tie-in sanctions on
    Iranian oil, a crucial source of its revenue for the regime,
    enhancing the security of the United States and our regional
    allies, including Israel.
        I want to thank my colleagues, over 175 of them, who have
    cosponsored this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support
    this critical piece of legislation, and I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. The Representative yields back.
        Is there any further discussion on the bill?
        I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        I want to thank the sponsors and the authors of this bill,
    Representative Lawler, Representative Cherfilus-McCormick.
        This is common-sense legislation and it supports the
    President's maximum pressure campaign against Iran. Iran has
    absolutely been an enemy of the United States of America for
    many decades. They have killed my friends, our service members
    on the battlefield. They've attacked our allies in attack after
    attack after attack.
        This bill authorizes the sanctions on foreign persons
    engaged in refining, processing, transferring, or selling oil,
    condensates, petroleum, petrochemicals, or products from Iran,
    which is the main funding arm for Iran to support their
    terrorist activities.
        So, I applaud this work and I support this piece of
    legislation. I rise in support of it.
        And in that, is there any further discussion on this?
        All right. There being no further discussion of the bill,
    the committee will move to consideration of amendments.
        Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
        Mr. Lawler. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk
    and I ask for its consideration at this time.
        Chairman Mast. Representative Lawler, you are recognized.
        The clerk shall distribute the Lawler amendment in the
    nature of a substitute.
        While they are distributing the Lawler amendment in the
    nature of a substitute, the clerk shall report the amendment.
        The Clerk. ``Amendment in the nature of a substitute to
    H.R. 1422 offered by Mr. Lawler of New York.''
        Chairman Mast. Without objection, further reading of the
    amendment is dispensed with.
        [The amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
    Lawler follows:]
    GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Chairman Mast. And the Representative is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank my colleague, the ranking member of the
    Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, Representative
    Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, as well as the ranking member of
    this entire committee, the Representative Gregory Meeks of New
    York, for working with us to make this a bipartisan bill to
    address some of the concerns of my colleagues.
        I'm happy to introduce this amendment, so that we can
    advance this bill forward with broad bipartisan support.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. The Representative yields back.
        Do any other Representatives seek recognition?
        Representative Meeks is recognized.
        Mr. Meeks. I support the amendment and thank Mr. Lawler for
    working with us. It matches what we have talked about, a good
    bipartisan bill.
        So, thank you, Mr. Lawler.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Do any other members seek recognition?
        I recognize myself.
        I, too, rise in support of the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute.
        Do any other members seek recognition?
        There being no further discussion, do any members wish to
    offer an amendment to the Lawler amendment in the nature of a
    substitute?
        Seeing none. Thank you.
        There being no further amendments, the question now occurs
    on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
    Representative Lawler.
        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 discussion on amendments, I move
    that the committee report H.R. 1422, as amended, to the House
    with a favorable recommendation.
        All those in favor of reporting to the House with a
    favorable recommendation, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, signify by saying no.
        In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
    motion is agreed to.
        Mr. Lawler. Mr. Chairman, can we have a roll call vote?
        Chairman Mast. Yes. A roll call vote has been requested.
        And pursuant to the previous announcement, this vote will
    be postponed.
        Mr. Lawler. Yes. I mean, sorry.
        Chairman Mast. Do you want to take yes for an answer?
        Mr. Lawler. Yes. Sure. Yes. I withdraw my request.
        Chairman Mast. Very good. A roll call vote is not
    requested.
        Without objection, no roll call vote. So ordered.
        Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
    table.
        And staff is authorized to make any technical and
    conforming changes.
        And we'll pull up the next piece of legislation.
        Thank you.
        All right. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 2683, the
    Remote Access Security Act.
        The bill was circulated in advance.
        The clerk shall designate the bill.
        The Clerk. ``H.R. 2683, To provide for control of remote
    access for items under the''----
        Chairman Mast. Without objection, the first reading is
    dispensed with and the bill is considered read and open to
    amendment at any point.
        [The bill H.R. 2683 follows:]
        GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Chairman Mast. Is there any discussion on the bill?
        Representative Lawler is recognized.
        Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to extend my thanks to my colleagues on both
    sides of the aisle for their partnership on this critical
    national security legislation.
        Today, China represents one of our Nation's greatest
    geopolitical threats. The Chinese Communist Party actively
    undermines our security by stealing intellectual property,
    launching cyberattacks, and exploiting every loophole possible
    to gain access to cutting-edge U.S. technology.
        Their goal is clear: to surpass the United States
    economically and militarily, and they are willing to do
    whatever it takes, including using our own technology against
    us. We cannot stand idle and allow that to happen.
        Right now, our export control policies have a significant
    loophole that puts America's security at risk. China is working
    tirelessly to exploit our advanced technology and it's clear
    why we need immediate action.
        U.S. export control policies are governed by the Export
    Control Reform Act of 2018, or ECRA, which empowers the Bureau
    of Industry and Security to restrict sensitive technologies
    from falling into adversarial hands.
        Under this law, export controls apply specifically to the
    export, re-export, or in-country transfer of controlled items.
    Unfortunately, existing authorities don't cut it anymore.
    Today, as technology has developed rapidly in the last few
    years, many sensitive technologies can be accessed remotely
    through cloud services.
        As a result, companies aligned with the Chinese Communist
    Party have been exploiting remote access loopholes and are
    using American technology to advance their AI development,
    military capabilities, and potentially much worse.
        As threats evolve, our laws must evolve to keep pace. The
    Remote Access Security Act clearly defines remote access and
    adds remote access provisions straight into ECRA, empowering
    BIS with the authority to extend existing export controls to
    cloud-based technologies.
        We collaborated directly with BIS to craft tight, effective
    language to close this loophole, and we worked in a bipartisan
    manner, because protecting American technology and our national
    security is a priority for us all.
        Our goal here is clear, and it is to end the exploitation
    of our export control swiftly and effectively, and I urge all
    of my colleagues here and in the Senate to move quickly to pass
    this legislation into law.
        And I want to thank some of my cosponsors, co-leads on
    this: Brad Sherman of California, Jasmine Crockett of Texas,
    and Rich McCormick of Georgia.
        And this is something that has broad support, including
    from the chair and the ranking member of the China Select
    Committee, as well as the chair and ranking member South and
    Central Asia Subcommittee in this Congress and this committee.
        So, I thank Chairman Mast for allowing this bill to come to
    the markup and look forward to its passage.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Is there any further discussion on the bill?
        There being no further discussion of the bill, the
    committee will move to consideration of amendments.
        Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
        Mr. Lawler. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk
    and I ask for its consideration at this time.
        Chairman Mast. You weren't recognized, but you stated it
    anyway.
        The clerk shall distribute the Lawler amendment in the
    nature of a substitute.
        Mr. Lawler. Thank you.
        Chairman Mast. The clerk shall report the amendment.
        The Clerk. ``Amendment in the nature of a substitute to
    H.R. 2683 offered by Mr. Lawler of New York.''
        Chairman Mast. Without objection, further reading of the
    amendment is dispensed with.
        [The amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
    Lawler follows:]
    GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Chairman Mast. Representative Lawler is recognized for 5
    minutes on the amendment.
        Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Again, this amendment is an effort to address some concerns
    from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and make sure
    that this bill is bipartisan and has strong bipartisan support,
    as we seek to crack down on China's efforts to use U.S.
    technology against us.
        So, I thank my colleagues for working with me and look
    forward to its passage.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Mast. Do any other members seek recognition?
        Representative Meeks is recognized.
        Mr. Meeks. I support the ANS by Representative Lawler.
        The Biden administration imposed unprecedented
    semiconductor export controls against China in October 2022 and
    tightened those controls in 2023, 2024, and 2025.
        Since the initial controls, PRC companies and others have
    been trying to find workarounds to circumvent these safeguards.
    One such avenue has been assessing chips remotely via cloud
    computing.
        For instance, in 2023, the Financial Times reported that
    some PRC artificial intelligence companies were skirting U.S.
    controls to access high-end U.S. chips through the use of cloud
    providers.
        The bill in front of us today provides the Bureau of
    Industry and Security the statutory authority to control not
    just the physical export of technology, but also remote access
    to it.
        The bill amends the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 to
    add a definition of ``remote access'' and provides authority to
    control remote access items.
        I want to thank Chairman Mast and Representative Lawler for
    working with me on this bipartisan ANS, and I was able to
    secure some important changes that make the bill stronger.
        First, we require national security justification for any
    new regulations consistent with the version of the bill that
    passed the House last Congress.
        We also added a congressional consultation section to
    ensure that this committee is informed about new regulations in
    a timely manner, so that we can conduct proper oversight.
        So, I support this measure and I urge all of my colleagues
    to do so, and I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Mast. The Representative yields back.
        Do any other members seek recognition?
        I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        I want to thank the Representatives for their work on this
    bill and this amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        It's important. It closed a loophole in our Export Control
    Reform Act of 2018 by amending the law and adding the term
    ``remote access,'' something that wasn't considered
    appropriately at the time.
        This bill provides a definition for ``remote access'' and
    reassurances to innocent companies that they're not going to be
    held liable for an export control violation if they are hacked.
        And it ensures that Congress is kept fully informed of any
    anticipated regulations of remote access items.
        And so, again, I want to thank the members for their work
    on this piece of legislation.
        Again, do any other members seek recognition before I close
    this out?
        No? There being no further discussion, do any other members
    wish to offer an amendment to the Lawler amendment in the
    nature of a substitute?
        There being no further amendments, the question now occurs
    on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
    Representative Lawler.
        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.
        Mr. Lawler. No roll call.
        Chairman Mast. No roll call vote has been requested.
        Mr. Lawler. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Mast. We'll get there.
        Representative Lawler, hold on one moment.
        There being no further amendments, I move that the
    committee report out H.R. 2683, as amended, to the House with a
    favorable recommendation.
        All those in favor of moving it to the House with a
    favorable recommendation, signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, signify by saying no.
        In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
    motion is agreed to.
        Mr. Lawler. And I request a roll call vote, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Mast. A roll call vote has been requested.
        Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote
    will be postponed.
        And on to the next piece of legislation.
        Thank you.
        Are you ready? All right.
        Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 260, the No Tax
    Dollars for Terrorists Act.
        The bill was circulated in advance.
        And the clerk shall designate the bill.
        The Clerk. ``H.R. 260, To require a strategy to oppose
    financial or material support by foreign countries and
    nongovernmental organizations to the Taliban, and for other
    purposes.''
        Chairman Mast. Without objection, the first reading is
    dispensed with and the bill is considered read and open to
    amendment at any point.
        [The bill H.R. 260 follows:]
       GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Chairman Mast. Is there any discussion on the bill?
        Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Mast. Representative Burchett is recognized.
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This bill, H.R. 260, focuses on three main issues.
        And this bill was brought to my attention by Navy SEAL Sean
    Rind and a friend of his, Legend, who goes by that name because
    of his death threats. He's a former--he's an Afghani that
    fought on our side.
        It does three things, Mr. Chairman.
        It keeps financial and material support out of the hands of
    the Taliban.
        No. 2, it reports on cash assistance programs.
        And three, reporting on the Afghan Fund and the Afghan
    Central Bank.
        Since December 2021, Mr. Chairman, the United States has
    sent over $5 billion in cash to Kabul. This money has been
    taxed and stolen by the Taliban. Yet, we continue to send it,
    oddly enough. And that definitely needs to end.
        The State Department needs to ensure that any daggum aid,
    whether financial or material, does not go to terrorists in
    Afghanistan.
        We need to have a clear understanding of the influence the
    Taliban on not just international aid, but the Afghan banking
    system as well. They will hate us for free, Mr. Chairman.
        When this bill was originally introduced at the end of
    2023, it did not mention nongovernmental organizations, or
    NGO's, in Afghanistan. However, our understanding of the
    reality on the ground has changed.
        During a hearing last year, former Secretary of State
    Antony Blinken admitted--and he admitted--that over $10 million
    had been paid to the Taliban.
        Contacts within Taliban resistance forces have provided me
    with a different narrative. According to them, nearly all of
    the cash and aid sent to Afghanistan ends up in the hands of
    the Taliban.
        It is time we know what is going on and implement a
    strategy to make sure this aid goes to those who need it.
        I want to thank you and I yield back the remainder of my
    time.
        Chairman Mast. The gentleman yields back.
        Is there any further discussion?
        Representative Meeks is recognized.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        During the last Congress, I was very pleased to work with
    Mr. Burchett, my friend, to negotiate a bipartisan agreement on
    this bill, that this bill passed through the committee
    unanimously. And it passed the House on the House floor under
    suspension of the rules.
        Earlier this month, I also agreed with the Majority to send
    this bill straight to the floor for consideration.
    Unfortunately, the bill's sponsor would not agree. And instead,
    the text we have before us does not include any of the
    bipartisan changes we had previously negotiated. I intend to
    seek amendments to improve this legislation and restore many of
    the safeguards that have been removed.
        I believe the history of this legislation shows our
    willingness to negotiate in good faith on this issue. Oversight
    of U.S. policy and assistance in Afghanistan does not have to
    be a partisan topic.
        We've long shared bipartisan support for Afghan allies who
    stood with us during our war effort in Afghanistan and for
    vulnerable groups, especially women and girls, and for the need
    to conduct rigorous oversight of our spending in the country.
        It is the Trump administration who was threatening to upend
    that consensus. The administration has moved to shutter key
    program support and our Afghan allies.
        Just last week, in the dead of the night, the Trump
    administration appears to have unilaterally terminated more
    than $560 million in humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan--in
    contravention of appropriations law and without any
    consultation or briefing with Congress, despite numerous
    requests.
        So, how does risking a humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan
    advance U.S. national security? How does abandoning vulnerable
    Afghans or undercutting NGO's' help with the most vulnerable
    serve our interests? These are serious questions that demand
    answers.
        So, in the absence of amendments, my personal judgment is
    to oppose this bill.
        And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Mast. The Representative yields back.
        Do any other Representatives seek recognition?
        Representative Self is recognized.
        Mr. Self. Mr. Chairman, I have a simple question. On page 4
    of the bill, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the
    Administrator of USAID--I just want to make sure that that
    reads correctly in light of the recent changes.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Mast. Which line are you reading?
        Mr. Self. I'm looking at line 22 on page 4.
        Chairman Mast. Say that again? Line what?
        Mr. Self. Line 22----
        Chairman Mast. Line 22?
        Mr. Self [continuing]. on page 4.
        Chairman Mast. Very good.
        One moment, Mr. Self.
        Thank you, Mr. Self.
        There is an error there and it will be corrected in terms
    of a technical change when it comes to the floor.
        Does that satisfy your question? Do you yield back?
        Mr. Self. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you for bringing that up, Mr. Self. I
    appreciate it.
        Do any other members seek recognition?
        I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        This bill requires the Department of State to develop and
    implement a strategy to discourage foreign countries and
    nongovernment organizations, NGO's, from providing financial
    and material support to the Taliban.
        That's important for the United States of America. We don't
    have an embassy there. We don't have diplomatic relations with
    the Taliban, and they are a terrorist organization.
        This includes by using U.S.-provided foreign assistance to
    discourage countries and organizations from providing support
    to the Taliban. We don't want American tax dollars in any way,
    shape, or form going to the Taliban.
        And my colleague Mr. Meeks pointed out that this was a bill
    that was discussed in the last Congress. And one of the things
    that I would point out--and I strongly encourage discussion
    with your members about any consideration of voting no on this,
    as we come to this as a recorded vote later.
        Because in the last Congress, that was negotiated months
    before there was a SIGAR report released that spoke of their
    groundbreaking findings about how taxpayer dollars were
    benefiting the Taliban through NGO's, No. 1, and No. 2, just
    how many NGO's refused to even speak to SIGAR and talk about
    what they were using dollars for. That negotiation took place
    before that, as one of the things that should be discussed
    about any consideration of possibly voting no on this bill.
        It is important for us that we have transparency where our
    dollars are going, or not going--I would agree with you--and
    that includes through NGO's, and especially NGO's that are
    working with the Taliban.
        That concludes my remarks for this.
        Do any other members seek recognition?
        There being no further discussion of the bill, the
    committee will move to consideration of amendments.
        Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
        Mr. Meeks. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
        [The Amendment offered by Mr. Meeks follows:]
        GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Chairman Mast. Representative Meeks is recognized.
        The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
        The clerk shall report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.
    260 offered by Mr. Meeks of New York. Strike all----
        Chairman Mast. Without objection, further reading of the
    amendment is dispensed with and Representative Meeks is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Meeks. This amendment is actually very simple. It is
    the version of the bill which passed this committee in a
    unanimous recorded vote and the House by a voice vote in the
    last Congress.
        It restores a number of the changes that I believe keep the
    legislation focused on its intended purpose, to curb genuine
    financial and military--and material support for the Taliban.
        For example, it clarifies that the bill applies only to
    assistance that is inconsistent with U.S. law or policy.
    Without that kind of clarifying language a foreign partner who
    is doing exactly what Republicans say they want other countries
    to do step up to share foreign assistance burdens with the
    United States could be cited in this report.
        This amendment also ensures implementing partners are not a
    risk--not put at risk by the report on cash assistance, makes
    technical changes that would make the bill more realistic to
    implement, and prevents reports of strategies which continue
    indefinitely, another long-standing Republican pet peeve.
        These are common-sense fixes that I believe we could have
    made before this markup, just as we did in the last Congress.
    Nevertheless, I hope that my colleagues would once again
    unanimously support this language and then we can start moving
    and try to have a bipartisan bill. And with that I yield back
    the balance of my time.
        Chairman Mast. Do any other members seek recognition?
    Representative Olszewski is recognized.
        Mr. Olszewski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to applaud
    you and this committee for bringing forward a slate of bills
    that are--I believe will have strong bipartisan support today
    because I do believe our approach to foreign policy should be
    rooted in bipartisanship whenever possible. That is why I am
    speaking in strong support of Ranking Member Meeks' amendment
    which would reaffirm this committee's commitment to
    bipartisanship.
        As the ranking member has already stated Democrats and
    Republicans came together last Congress to overwhelmingly pass
    a negotiated and bipartisan bill. That included critical
    protections for NGO's providing humanitarian assistance in
    vulnerable areas that may be under control of the Taliban.
        I am concerned this bill's new reporting requirements will
    threaten the safety of international aid workers. Afghanistan
    continues to be one of the most violent countries for aid
    workers. Dozens have lost their lives, many more risk
    kidnapping, sexual assault, and other forms of violence. We
    should be protecting these lifesaving workers, not exposing
    them to additional risks.
        To be clear, we should be doing everything we can to ensure
    taxpayer dollars are not being diverted or misused by the
    Taliban, however, with 23 million people in Afghanistan roughly
    half its population requires humanitarian assistance. So we
    should not take lightly this life or death impact and any
    disruption of U.S. foreign assistance for those living under
    the Taliban's repressive rule.
        Apart from the material changes to the bill I want to beat
    the drum again that rejecting this amendment is abandoning a
    bill negotiated last Congress that secured unanimous committee
    approval before advancing to the House floor and passing under
    suspension. Foreign affairs need not be a partisan issue. It is
    about safeguarding American interests and promoting global
    stability.
        So again, I know our markup to date and the success of this
    bill in last Congress shows that we can negotiate and work
    together to find these bipartisan wins. I urge my colleagues to
    reject that approach and return to the bipartisan framework
    being offered by the ranking member so that our committee and
    our country may continue to be served well. I urge my
    colleagues to vote in support of this amendment and I yield
    back.
        Chairman Mast. Do any other representatives seek
    recognition? Representative Burchett is recognized.
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand this
    amendment is a copy of the legislation that passed our
    committee last Congress, but I oppose the amendment for a
    couple of reasons: First, since the previous bill's
    introduction in 2023 we have been made aware of seriously
    concerning activity as it relates to how the Taliban treats
    non-governmental organizations, or NGO's.
        Now we know about 70 percent--70 percent, Mr. Chairman--of
    the aid work being in Afghanistan is done by NGO's. They should
    absolutely be included in this legislation. Small NGO's do not
    have the protection of an organization like the United Nations.
    Everybody knows that. And if the State Department is to
    implement a strategy to keep tax dollars out of the hands of
    the Taliban, NGO's should have that protection. They should
    have that protection.
        Now here is the fact that you need to listen to: Also, it
    is estimated there are around 1,000 NGO's operating in
    Afghanistan today. A thousand. We need to know who these groups
    are that are receiving our tax dollars.
        Second, there is a weekly influx of cash being sent to
    Kabul. Anti-Taliban contacts tell me approximately $40
    million--$40 millionsin cash is flown to Afghanistan weekly.
    That is American taxpayers' dollars. In November 2022 alone 280
    million was flown to Kabul. This year over 200 million has been
    delivered. This cash is deposited into the Afghanistan
    International Bank and then it is transferred to Afghanistan's
    Central Bank. Afghanistan's Central Bank is currently under
    control of the Taliban. I don't trust the Taliban to properly
    distribute $40 million every week only to aid workers. I don't
    see how anybody can on either side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman.
        The State Department must move quickly to end this
    practice, which is why the reporting timeline has been
    shortened compared to last Congress' version of the bill. Every
    week, every week, Mr. Chairman, is $40 million that we cannot
    account for going to the Taliban.
        I would sincerely urge my colleagues to vote against this
    amendment and I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. The representative yields back.
        Do any other members seek recognition?
        I recognize myself for 5 minutes. And I rise in opposition
    to this amendment in the nature of a substitute and would again
    encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to rise
    against this amendment because there has been an important
    change that has taken place to what is the meatiest part of
    this amendment, and that addresses whether NGO's are or are not
    included in who will be reported on.
        If there are dollars going out the door from an American
    taxpayer to a foreign country, foreign NGO, foreign adversary,
    foreign terrorist organization of which--when we are talking
    about the Taliban, it is pretty much all of the above. The
    American people deserve to know and their representatives
    deserve to know where are those dollars going, not--the
    alternative is literally this amendment is asking that we cover
    our eyes and say I don't want to know where that money is
    going. It is going to an NGO? I am covering my eyes; I am
    covering my ears. Don't tell me who is spending the money and
    what they are actually spending the money on.
        That is what the request of this ANS is, especially in
    light of again what I mentioned previously. There was a SIGAR
    report that came out, a Special Investigator General on
    Afghanistan that released their groundbreaking report on the
    tens of millions of dollars that were spent by NGO's going
    directly to the Taliban. That is not disputed. That is
    something that was actually taking place. Tens of millions of
    dollars of American taxpayer dollars going directly to the
    Taliban.
        And beyond that, the fact that there were hundreds, if not
    thousands of NGO's that wouldn't even report to the Special
    Investigator General about what they were doing. Basically
    saying no, I am not going to tell you or here is a middle
    finger, or here is whatever. Sorry, we are not going to let you
    know what it is that we are doing. Go pound sand.
        That is what has changed since the previous negotiation and
    what is being put forward right now in this amendment in the
    nature of a substitute. There was no SIGAR report at that time.
    To this moment right now--and in my opinion that is undoubtedly
    the most important, and the media's part of why to oppose this
    ANS and to go with the Burchett version of this bill. Because
    we deserve that accountability of where those dollars are
    going.
        And it would be wholly irresponsible for any of us to say
    again, I am going to cover my eyes, I am going to cover my
    ears. Don't tell me what NGO's those dollars are going to and
    don't tell me what those NGO's are doing with those dollars and
    don't tell the NGO's that they have to report back to us about
    what is going on there. And it really begs even a further
    question, which is if it is a non-government organization why
    are they receiving dollars from the government? That is an even
    bigger question, but I suggest that be addressed at a different
    time.
        Again I will make these points: SIGAR found that the
    Taliban has received tens of millions of dollars, American
    taxpayer dollars via NGO's operating in Afghanistan. Fact.
    Unfortunately, we do not have a list of those NGO's. Hasn't
    been given to us. This legislation would change that. The U.S.
    has turned a blind eye to NGO's and foreign countries propping
    up the Taliban regime, and that is going to change.
        And for too long these NGO's have carried out misguided
    programming that enables the Taliban to strengthen their grip
    on the country. And again, the worst part of that is that there
    has been no transparency about it from the State Department and
    in fact I think ignoring, really in many cases, what was that
    SIGAR report?
        So that concludes my comments on this amendment in the
    nature of a substitute, which I recommend a no vote on.
        Do any other members seek recognition?
        All right. No other members seek recognition. There being
    no further discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment
    offered by Representative Meeks.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye?
        Aye. Nay. No. I am sorry I am a no.
        I am used to saying aye. You almost got me.
        All those in favor--let's try this one more time. All those
    in favor, signify by saying aye?
        All those opposed, signify by saying no?
        Chairman Mast. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have
    it and the amendment is not agreed to.
        Mr. Meeks. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a roll call.
        Chairman Mast. A roll call vote has been requested.
    Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will
    be postponed.
        Are there any further amendments?
        Mr. Keating. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
        [The Amendment offered by Mr. Keating follows:]
        GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Chairman Mast. Very good. The representative is recognized.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to address a
    grave and--I am sorry. You are going to distribute the
    amendment.
        Chairman Mast. Let me get to that. One moment. There we go.
    The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
        The clerk shall report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 260 offered by Mr. Keating of
    Massachusetts. Page 3----
        Chairman Mast. Without objection, further reading of the
    amendment is dispensed with and the representative is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to address a
    grave and pressing issue, the Taliban's systematic oppression
    of women, girls, and Afghan nationals who courageously served
    alongside U.S. Forces during our mission in Afghanistan. My
    amendment ensures that the State Department remains focused on
    a strategy to support these vulnerable groups, support for
    which has or years had strong bipartisan support within this
    committee.
        I firmly believe that it is critical the U.S. continues to
    deprive the Taliban of the financial resources it desires and
    ensures that foreign governments are not materially supported
    supporting the so-called Taliban government.
        That is why in the last Congress I supported a bipartisan
    version of this legislation that Ranking Member Meeks has
    introduced as an amendment in the nature of a substitute. I had
    hoped that there would be bipartisan consensus on that matter.
        Yet, the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan poses
    significant threats to U.S. counterterrorism and human rights
    issues. In particular, the Taliban's continued persecution of
    women and girls and their targeting of Afghans who bravely
    supported the United States throughout the war is despicable
    and necessitates congressional action.
        Since retaking Afghanistan the Taliban has imposed
    draconian measures that have effectively erased women from
    public life. Last year the Taliban enacted new vice and virtue
    laws requiring women to fully cover their bodies, including
    their faces, in public. These laws also prohibit women from
    speaking or having their voices heard outside their homes.
    Afghanistan remains the only country where girls are banned
    from education beyond the sixth grade. This denial not only
    violates their basic rights, but it also has far-reaching
    consequences for the country's development and stability.
        At the same time the Taliban are hunting down the
    interpreters, guides, and support staff who are indispensable
    to our operations in Afghanistan, often placing themselves and
    their families in grave danger to assist our troops.
        We must honor or commitments to support and protect these
    heroes. This is why I strongly support expediting special
    immigration visas and advocating for the International
    Organization for Migration Refuge Progressing Center that was
    established in Pakistan.
        My amendment ensures that any State Department strategy to
    counter the Taliban includes consideration of the groups that
    most need our support: women, girls, and our Afghan allies who
    risked their lives for us. I urge my colleagues to support this
    amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Mast. Do any other members seek recognition?
    Representative Meeks is recognized.
        Mr. Meeks. I support the Keating amendment. Support for the
    Afghans who fought and worked alongside the United States in
    Afghanistan, as well as Afghan women and girls who have face
    sustained oppression under the Taliban, have long been areas of
    strong bipartisan agreement. This amendment will ensure the
    department regularly reports on how the administration is
    advancing those important goals.
        There have been reports that the administration is
    considering dismantling the CARE Office at the State--at State
    that leads Afghan relocations despite a bipartisan law that I
    was proud to work with Ms. Titus and Mr. Bard and Chairman
    McCaul to enact in the last Congress to formally authorize CARE
    and the Office of the Special Envoy for Afghan Women and Girls.
    The department has not been responsive to requests to provide
    additional information on these changes.
        Supporting Mr. Keating's amendment will send a message that
    these congressional priorities are too important for the
    administration to neglect. Yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Do any other members seek recognition?
        I recognize myself for 5 minutes. The Burchett bill
    requires that there be a strategy, development of a strategy to
    discourage foreign countries and non-government organizations
    from providing financial and material support to the Taliban.
    That is the purpose of this bill.
        I want to thank my colleagues on the other side for working
    with us to come to a conclusion on an amendment that I can
    support. And this amendment, what it would do is it would
    insert the following about strategy: ``The strategy shall
    include efforts to support Afghan women and girls who are
    suffering under the Taliban edicts in a way that,'' as the
    purpose of this bill states, ``does not support the Taliban and
    efforts to relocate eligible fully vetted, at-risk Afghans and
    Afghan allies located inside and outside of Afghanistan to the
    United States or third countries.''
        And I think those are very important things to mention. It
    has to be in a way that does not support the Taliban. And as we
    look at individuals moving out of their country or origin, they
    have to be fully vetted.
        So I do rise in support of this amendment. I want to thank
    my colleagues across both sides of the aisle for working with
    us and the author of the bill as well.
        Do any other members seek recognition? Representative
    Baumgartner is recognized.
        Mr. Baumgartner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am encouraged by
    those words and would like to support the amendment as well,
    too.
        When I worked in Helmand Province off base in Southern
    Afghanistan I still remember hiring our first female Afghan
    employee on our counter-narcotics team and the threats that she
    went through from the Taliban to have that position, and still
    remember talking to her husband and the cultural aspects of her
    working for us. My wife and I have been successful in working
    with other Americans to get a number of our Afghan counterparts
    we worked with into the U.S. who are targeted by the Taliban,
    but there are still a number of our team members who are in
    Afghanistan and Pakistan and at risk of retribution, so I very
    much support the underlying aims of this amendment. Thank you,
    Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Mast. Do any other members seek recognition?
        There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
    on the amendment offered by Representative Keating.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye?
        All those opposed, signify by saying no?
        In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
    amendment is agreed to.
        Are there any further amendments?
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the
    desk.
        [The Amendment offered by Ms. Kamlager-Dove follows:]
       GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Chairman Mast. Very good. The clerk shall distribute the
    amendment.
        The clerk shall report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 260 offered by Ms. Kamlager-
    Dove of California. Page 4----
        Chairman Mast. Without objection, further reading of the
    amendment is dispensed with and the representative is
    recognized for 5 minutes on the amendment.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My primary concern
    is that this legislation is unfortunately out of sync with the
    administration's changing foreign policy and international
    assistance posture toward Afghanistan.
        I agree with the sponsor that it is incredibly important
    for international assistance to be supporting the people of
    Afghanistan and not bad actors like the Taliban, but I don't
    know if this bill's focus is still relevant given that the
    administration has eliminated our foreign assistance tools and
    appears to have terminated all remaining humanitarian awards in
    Afghanistan just this past weekend. Ending these life-saving
    programs that previously received waivers rips away a lifeline
    for the most vulnerable Afghans.
        Additionally, if the goal of the bill is to increase
    oversight of potential avenues of support for the Taliban, I
    think it is important to include the administration's growing
    engagement with the Taliban in the past month. In a move that
    gave up an important source of U.S. leverage the administration
    lifted $20 million in bounties on the leaders of the Haqqani
    Network, a designated foreign terrorist organization that is
    responsible for some of the highest profile and deadliest
    attacks on Americans. If the administration is making
    concessions to the Taliban, Congress must be informed and
    consulted about what if anything we are receiving in return.
        There has been a bipartisan consensus that any easing of
    U.S. pressure on the Taliban should be tied to meaningful
    progress on the rights of Afghan women and girls who suffer the
    greatest gender-based persecution on this plant. The
    administration should not change that policy without providing
    a justification to Congress and an opportunity for
    congressional input.
        My amendment would bring Congress into the conversation on
    the most recent developments in the administration's
    Afghanistan policy and I urge my colleagues to support it. And
    with that, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Do any other members seek recognition?
    Representative Meeks is recognized.
        Mr. Meeks. I support the amendment. I have long maintained
    that we should not be afraid to talk with the Taliban when it
    is in our interest to do so on issues like terrorism or the
    wrongful detention of Americans, but removing the bounties from
    Haqqani, however you pronounce it, is a major step that we
    should only make in exchange for significant concessions from
    the Taliban and after discussions with Congress. Thus far the
    department has failed to respond to the committee's requests
    for more information on this matter, so I believe mandating a
    report on this concerning--is concerning and unilateral foreign
    policy decisions is an appropriate step. Yield back the balance
    of my time.
        Chairman Mast. Do any other members seek recognition?
        I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        I rise in support of this amendment. The Haqqanis are a
    notorious terrorist organization who are guilty of killing
    American service members, my friends. Despite their efforts to
    rehabilitate themselves as Taliban officials--I don't know how
    much of a rehabilitation that is, but we will say that is what
    is taking place--the Haqqani Network is still a U.S.-designated
    foreign terrorist organization and they should be treated as
    such.
        The administration has the right to remove individuals from
    the Rewards for Justice Program and we believe that they should
    be accountable for Congress for these decisions that are being
    made. And that is why we have in fact sent a letter as well to
    the Secretary of State asking for answers and responses about
    why the Haqqani Network has been removed.
        I do urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and
    would ask again do any other members seek recognition?
    Representative Burchett is recognized.
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too support this
    amendment and I want to thank my friend for presenting this.
    And I would also like to add that my friend Legend, who is the
    Afghan that goes by the code name Legend, had asked us to
    implement something of this sort. So I really appreciate my
    friend across the aisle and her heartfelt efforts on this.
        Thank you, ma'am.
        Chairman Mast. Do any other members seek recognition?
        Was that you, Representative Olszewski, or just----
        Mr. Olszewski.
        [Inaudible.]
        Chairman Mast. Very good. There being no further
    discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by
    Representative Kamlager-Dove.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye?
        All those opposed, signify by saying no?
        In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
    amendment is agreed to.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. I was just going to say, Mr. Chair----
        Chairman Mast. The representative is recognized.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. I was just going to say to Congressman
    Burchett, you know, there was a movie made about your friend,
    right? I Am Legend.
        Mr. Burchett. I believe that was Will Smith. I am not--but
    no, that was the zombies were taking over. That was a great
    movie, though.
        It was actually a remake of a Charleton Heston movie. But
    anyway, we can talk about that later, but----
        Chairman Mast. I don't mind going down this rabbit hole. It
    is Okay.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. I apologize.
        Mr. Burchett. I am looking to my fashion consultant,
    Chairman Meeks, for a little help here.
        Chairman Mast. Are there any further amendments?
        Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk
    and ask for its consideration, please.
        [The Amendment offered by Ms. Johnson follows:]
        GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Chairman Mast. Very good. The clerk shall distribute the
    amendment.
        The clerk shall designate the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 260 offered by Ms. Johnson.
    Page 4, line 19, insert the following:
        Chairman Mast. Without objection, further reading of the
    amendment is dispensed with and the representative is now
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My
    amendment requires a report to Congress from the Secretary of
    State in consultation with USAID Administrator on the firing of
    John for Afghanistan Reconstruction and its effort on the
    oversight of the United States to Afghanistan. The Office of
    the Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction was
    created on a bipartisan basis by Congress in 2008 to provide
    independent and objective oversight of Afghanistan
    reconstruction projects and activities.
        Throughout its 16-year existence SIGAR has routinely
    provided detailed information on all obligations, expenditures,
    and revenues relating to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan
    including most notably the Afghanistan papers, which gave the
    American people a brutally honest view of the State of the war
    in Afghanistan in 2009.
        Though the changing dynamics in Afghanistan SIGAR's
    comprehensive oversight prevented any potential duplication of
    efforts, assess programs across all agencies involved, and
    provided best judgment on risks that could expose U.S.
    assistance potential waste, fraud, and abuse, mismanagement, or
    mission failure.
        Like the other inspector generals across the government
    these independent watchdogs are mission-driven to save taxpayer
    dollars. In fact, most recent numbers tell us that the
    inspector general oversight has collectively resulted in
    potential savings of about $93.1 billion. That is a $26 return
    on every dollar invested in that oversight.
        And I know that this needs no introduction to this
    committee. Both Mr. Chairman and the bill author have
    repeatedly cited positive statements on behalf of Mr. Sopko and
    Sigar. But as this bill--as one of the first moves of this
    President, President Trump illegally purged 18 inspector
    generals. What was the need to fire Mr. Sopko before he could
    complete the final forensic audit required by the statute? What
    about SIGAR's outstanding criminal investigations on its
    research or lessons learned?
        Already we know that putting--this is putting
    accountability at risk and I ask this court--this committee to
    strongly consider this amendment because government
    transparency and accountability is a priority for all of us
    here. And I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I
    yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Do any other members seek recognition?
    Representative Meeks is recognized.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the Johnson
    amendment. I was glad to work with the majority on legislation
    to wind down the Special Inspector General of Afghanistan
    reconstruction in an orderly manner in the previous Congress.
    Given the impending sunset of the office, I would have to
    question why the--what the rationale is to fire Mr. Sopko
    unless you just have a penchant, as President Trump seems to
    have, for firing inspector generals without proper
    justification.
        I know that Mr. Sopko's work informed much of our
    committee's work on Afghanistan including, and I believe Mr.
    Burchett's bill. And I hope that my majority colleagues would
    join Ms. Johnson and I in seriously examining why he and other
    inspector generals for agencies under our jurisdiction were
    summarily terminated without providing justification to the
    U.S. Congress. With that, I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Do any other members seek recognition?
        I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        I will start by answering the question that was just posed
    by my colleague. Why fire the inspector general when the
    program was already winding down? That is an important point to
    make, one, that the program was already winding down. It was in
    last year's NDAA to wind down this program essentially by the
    end of this year. But why fire them? Why get rid of them? Why
    close this down if they are already winding down the program?
    Because if there is not a need to continue the SIGAR, then you
    wind it down sooner than that. That is the purpose of winding
    it down sooner. That is the purpose of ending this employment.
        I think the SIGAR was outstanding work. I wish more of my
    colleagues thought that the SIGAR report was outstanding work.
    Last Congress I chaired the Foreign Affairs Oversight
    Subcommittee and I think truthfully--I guess I say this tongue-
    in-cheek, joking, that I think maybe Democrats should take some
    of the blame for ending Mr. Sopko's work because I don't think
    very many of them read the SIGAR report, and certainly didn't
    want to pay attention to the SIGAR report. So maybe that is
    part of the reason that we are winding this down. But to that
    point, it was good work that was done, but that work has come
    to an end.
        I rise in opposition of this amendment, encourage other
    members to vote no on this amendment.
        I will ask again, are there any further comments on the
    amendment? Representative Perry is recognized.
        Mr. Perry. I thank the chairman and I, too, will be voting
    no on this amendment. While I do think that the SIGAR did
    outstanding work, which was often derided by my friends and
    colleagues on the other side of the aisle during the duration
    of his tenure, what did trouble me near the end of his tenure
    is the reason for Mr. Burchett's bill in the first place, the
    point that we are sending millions and millions of tax dollars,
    American tax dollars to the Taliban every month, yet the SIGAR
    didn't seem to report much on that. And that is as much of an
    issue as anything else. Supporting our enemy. Supporting those
    who have said they defeated America. Supporting those who abuse
    children and women. American tax dollars going to support that.
        Look, if you are going to take the good, you got to take
    the bad with the good. And if that was a bad report that the
    SIGAR didn't want to make, well, I appreciate that. But we need
    all the truth here, not just the truth that somebody wants to
    hear. And so I will follow the chairman----
        Chairman Mast. Would the gentleman yield for a moment?
        Mr. Perry. I am sorry?
        Chairman Mast. Will the gentleman yield for a moment?
        Mr. Perry. Of course I will.
        Chairman Mast. Thank you. And as you bring up this point
    again, I think it is important to recognize one of the big
    defining lines right now between the amendment in the nature of
    a substitute which will come for a vote and Representative
    Burchett's language about whether NGO's are going to report and
    be demanded to report about where American taxpayer dollars are
    going, or are we going to cover our eyes, close our--cover our
    ears, cover our eyes and just say we don't want to know what
    NGO's are doing with the money? Everybody else tell us what is
    going on with the money, but NGO's, you don't have to tell us
    because you are considered an NGO. And that makes no sense.
        We do know for a fact that within SIGAR these NGO's were
    literally just telling the Special Investigator General pound
    sand, we are not telling you. Very few of them reported back to
    SIGAR. And the vast majority of them just said we are not going
    to tell you what we are doing. You can't make us. And that is
    about what the--what Representative Burchett is changing and I
    think it is why it is so important.
        I will make this point again for when this comes up on a
    roll call vote I would absolutely encourage members on both
    sides of the aisle to think about the ramifications of voting
    to say NGO's don't have to report.
        My colleague and my ranking member in his opening remarks
    pointed out that Congress has a duty to conduct oversight. And
    I think we all believe that. Congress has a duty to conduct
    oversight. I believe that as well. And there is bipartisanship
    in that. And that has to be for entities even if they are
    labeled NGO. That doesn't put some kind of special hedge of
    protection around them. Yes, many individuals and NGO's are
    doing dangerous work. There is no question about it. But that
    doesn't mean there is not accountability because there is
    dangerous work. Because in the end every--I hate to use the
    word power, but for lack of a better word, every power or
    authority that we have the opportunity to wield comes from We
    the People. Every dollar comes from We the People. And that has
    to be respected above all.
        Mr. Perry. And I would just in the remaining moments remind
    everybody that these NGO's likely aren't reporting to the SIGAR
    or anybody else because regardless of their name they are not
    run by the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, other terrorist
    organizations, taking U.S. tax dollars and funneling them to
    other terrorist organizations or their own one, which is the
    reason they wouldn't report, which is a reason that we need to
    just end this charade and get to the business that Mr. Burchett
    has brought to the floor. With that, I yield.
        Chairman Mast. Do any other members seek recognition?
        There being no further discussion, the question now occurs
    on the amendment offered by Representative Johnson.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye?
        All those opposed, signify by saying no?
        In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I request a roll call vote.
        Chairman Mast. A roll call vote has been requested.
    Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement this vote will be
    postponed.
        Are there any further amendments?
        There being no further proceedings on this measure, the
    measure--there being no further amendments, further proceedings
    on this measure are postponed and we will move onto the next
    piece of legislation.
        Pursuant to notice, I call up H.R. 2643, the Haiti Criminal
    Collusion Transparency Act of 2025.
        [The Bill H.R. 2643 follows:]
        GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Chairman Mast. The bill was circulated in advance and the
    clerk shall designate the bill.
        The Clerk. H.R. 2643, to require the Secretary of State to
    submit an annual report to Congress regarding the ties between
    criminal gangs and political and economic elites in----
        Chairman Mast. 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 this bill?
    Representative Meeks is recognized.
        Mr. Meeks. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing
    this bill forward and for Chairman Emeritus McCaul for co-
    leading this effort. I would also like to thank and recognize
    Representative Cherfilus-McCormick for her hard work on this
    legislation.
        I know we all get this legislation introduced soon in the
    Senate though the prior Republican co-lead got a new job as
    Secretary of State. The jury is still out if that was a
    promotion or not, but we will be counting on Secretary Rubio to
    continue to prioritize Haiti from his new perch. And given what
    the chairman said earlier about oversight and bringing folks
    in--so I hope that we will have Secretary Rubio here soon so
    that we can oversight the State Department.
        So, Mr. Chairman, there is no way to sugarcoat the current
    situation in Haiti. Approximately 1 million Haitians, including
    700,000 children, have now been forced out of their homes by
    gang violence. In 2024 gangs killed more than 5,600 innocent
    Haitians with a further 2,212 people injured and 1,494
    kidnapped for ransom. Gang activity is no longer confined to
    the outskirts of Port-au-Prince expanding to cities and regions
    of the country once free from such violence.
        We ignore the ongoing crisis in Haiti at our own peril.
    Gangs able to out-gun the Haitian National Police and
    Multinational Security Support Mission continue to launch
    heavily armed attacks on ports, highways, critical
    infrastructure, police stations, courthouses, prisons,
    hospitals, businesses, and neighborhoods. They have committed
    gruesome massacres against civilians, even senior citizens. And
    for more than a year now they have dictated Haiti's security
    and political situation.
        But not everyone in Haiti has suffered at the hands of
    gangs. Some members of the political and economic elite have
    enabled, armed, and benefited from the unrest in Haiti and are
    just as culpable as the gangs for these ongoing crises.
        We have a duty to make sure that we identify and hold
    accountable those who fuel their country's chaos for their own
    profit. That is why I reintroduced the Haiti Criminal Collusion
    Transparency Act, which passed this committee and the House
    unanimously in the last Congress.
        My bill requires the State Department to develop a report
    detailing the ties between the political and economic elite in
    Haiti and the criminal gangs that have run roughshod over the
    country. Should the State Department find criminal collusion
    between members of Haitians--of Haiti's political and economic
    elite and the gangs, the legislation would impose sanction on
    those individuals enabling the anarchy and suffering in Haiti.
        The bill would also deny entry to the United States to
    those who are found to support gang activity, who also support
    kidnappings and rape to control and silence communities and
    coerce youth in and around the Port-au-Prince into the service
    of criminal activity. We cannot allow the gang leaders and
    those that support them to walk around with impunity. We just
    show the people of Haiti that they can chart a secure, stable,
    and democratic path and not allow the gangs to rule and dictate
    the reality on the ground.
        The United States must hold accountable those that try to
    travel back and forth from Haiti and engage in heinous criminal
    activity.
        So I thank the chairman. I thank Chairman Emeritus McCaul.
    I thank Representatives Fitzpatrick, Lawler, and Cherfilus-
    McCormick for supporting this measure and I ask that everyone
    else do the same. We cannot allow these individuals to go with
    and run around with impunity. And with that, I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Chairman Mast. Do any other members seek recognition?
    Representative Cherfilus-McCormick.
        Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman,
    and thank you to the Ranking Member Meeks and Chairman Emeritus
    McCaul for introducing this bipartisan piece of legislation
    which is truly important to not just me, but also my
    constituents.
        Armed criminal gangs with the promotion of cartels continue
    to wreak havoc across Haiti fanning the flames of worsening
    humanitarian crisis that has left children hungry. By shining a
    light on the connection between violent criminal enterprises
    and Haiti's corrupt political and economic leaders this
    critical legislation will better address the chaos that has
    engulfed Haiti. It is our responsibility as neighbors and
    allies of Haiti as Americans to help Haiti strengthen its
    institutions and preserve the rule of law. The instability
    cannot continue any longer.
        This bill empowers the Haitian people in their fight
    against not only the gangs, but also the cartels that finance,
    equip, and profit from the ongoing instability in Haiti. When
    Haiti is stable and firmly rooted in democracy, both Haitians
    and Americans benefit tremendously including the entire
    hemisphere. Immigration will be reduced and the region will
    also be more stable.
        Once again, I sincerely thank Ranking Member Meeks and
    Chair Emeritus McCaul and also Chairman Mast for supporting
    this legislation and bringing us one step closer to ending this
    nightmare for the entire region. I urge my colleagues support
    this legislation and I yield back.
        Chairman Mast. Do any other members seek recognition?
        I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        I rise in support of H.R. 2643, The Haiti Criminal
    Collusion Transparency Act of 2025, and I thank the members for
    their work on this important piece of legislation.
        Haitian green card holders are an important part of the
    American diaspora, and certainly the Florida diaspora as well.
    This bill requires the Secretary of State to submit an annual
    report to Congress detailing ties between the criminal gangs
    that are destroying life in Haiti and political and economic
    elites within Haiti that are benefiting from these criminal
    gangs, a list of the prominent Haitian gangs, their leaders,
    their criminal activities, areas of operation, political and
    economic elites again with links to them that might be
    supporting them, you name it.
        This is directly off of our shores and it is important that
    we pay attention to this issue. And this is certainly one
    example of Congress' demonstration that we will pay attention
    to what is going on there.
        In that, I will ask one more time, do any other
    representatives seek recognition?
        There being no further discussion of the bill, the
    committee will move to consideration of amendments. Does any
    member wish to offer an amendment?
        There being no further amendments, I move that the
    committee report H.R. 2643 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.
        Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
    table and staff is authorized to make any technical and
    conforming changes.
        The committee will recess until 2 p.m. at which point we
    will convene to vote on the postponed measures.
        [Recess.]
        AFTERNOON SESSION
        Chairman Mast. Committee will come to order. The committee
    postponed further proceedings on roll call vote on Amendment
    No. 24 offered by Representative Jacobs to H.R. 2169 on which
    the noes had prevailed by voice vote.
        The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment.
    Members will vote using the electronic voting system and the
    clerk will open the vote. The chair recommends a no vote.
        Mr. Issa is having issues with his technology, so we will
    just--is Connolly here or is he having an issue with this
    thing? A couple of them seem to have battery issues of
    something.
        Is Kean changing his battery as well because he hasn't
    voted?
        How is Mr. Kean reported?
        The Clerk. He is not reported.
        Mr. Kean.
        The Clerk. Mr. Kean votes no.
        Chairman Mast. How is Mr. Issa reported?
        The Clerk. He is not reported.
        Mr. Issa. Issa votes no.
        The Clerk. Issa votes no.
        Chairman Mast. Have all members voted?
        They did it by voice.
        Does any member wish to change their vote?
        We are good on that, on the voice counts? Yes? Good? All
    right.
        The clerk will close the vote and report the tally.
        The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 23, the noes are 27.
        Chairman Mast. Very good. The noes have it and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        There being no further amendments, I move that the
    committee report H.R. 2619, as amended, to the House with a
    favorable recommendation. I move that the committee report H.R.
    2619 to the House with a favorable recommendation.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye?
        All those opposed, signify by saying no?
        In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
    motion is agreed to.
        Mr. Baumgartner. Mr. Chair, on that I request a recorded
    vote.
        Chairman Mast. A recorded vote has been requested. Members
    will vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will
    open the vote.
        How is Mr. Kean reported?
        The Clerk. He is not recorded.
        Mr. Kean. Kean votes yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Kean votes yes.
        Mr. Issa. Issa votes yes.
        Chairman Mast. How is Mr. Issa reported?
        The Clerk. He is recorded yes.
        Chairman Mast. And how is Mr. Davidson reported?
        The Clerk. He is not recorded.
        Mr. Davidson. Davidson votes yes.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davidson votes aye.
        Chairman Mast. Do you have Mr. Kean recorded?
        Very good. All right. Have all members voted?
        Does any member wish to change their vote?
        The clerk will close the vote, report the tally.
        The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 45 and the noes are 6.
        Chairman Mast. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed
    to.
        Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
    table. The measure is ordered favorably reported as amendment--
    as amended and as a single amendment in the nature of a
    substitute and staff is authorized to make any technical and
    conforming changes.
        The committee postponed further proceedings on reporting
    H.R. 2683, as amended, favorably to the House on which the ayes
    prevailed by voice vote. The question now occurs on reporting
    the measure to the House with a favorable recommendation.
    Members will vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk
    will open the vote.
        How is Mr. Davidson reported?
        The Clerk. Mr. Davidson is not recorded.
        Mr. Davidson. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davidson votes aye.
        Chairman Mast. Very good. Have all members voted?
        Does any member wish to record or change their vote?
        The clerk will close the vote and report the tally.
        The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 51, the noes are 0.
        Chairman Mast. The ayes have it and the motion is agreed
    to. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the
    table and staff is authorized to make any technical and
    conforming changes.
        The committee postponed further proceedings in the roll
    call vote on Amendment No. 22 offered by Representative Meeks
    to H.R. 260 on which the noes had prevailed by voice vote. The
    question not occurs on agreeing to the amendment. Members will
    vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open
    the vote.
        How is Mr. Davidson reported?
        The Clerk. Mr. Davidson is not reported.
        Mr. Davidson. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davidson votes no.
        Chairman Mast. How is Mr. Baird reported?
        Mr. Baird. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Baird votes aye.
        Mr. Baird. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Baird votes no.
        Chairman Mast. We are going to ask DOGE who created this
    system.
        Are we all recorded?
        Have all members voted?
        Does any member wish to record or change their vote?
        Mr. Baird, do you need to know how you are recorded?
        The Clerk. He is a no.
        Chairman Mast. All right. Very good. Mr. Baird is recorded
    as a no? You are good with that?
        Okay. The clerk will close the vote and report the tally.
        The Clerk. On this vote the noes are 28, the ayes are 24.
        Chairman Mast. Very good. The noes have it and the
    amendment is not agreed to.
        The committee postponed further proceedings on roll call
    vote on Amendment No. 2 offered by Representative Johnson to
    H.R. 260 on which the noes had prevailed by voice vote. The
    question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment. Members will
    vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open
    the vote.
        How is Representative Baird recorded?
        The Clerk. Representative Baird is not recorded.
        Mr. Baird. No.
        The Clerk. Representative Baird votes no.
        Chairman Mast. Have all members voted?
        Does any member wish to record or change their vote?
        The clerk will close the vote and report the tally?
        The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 23, the noes are 28.
        Chairman Mast. The noes have it and the amendment is not
    agreed to.
        There being no further amendments, I move that committee
    report H.R. 260, as amended, to the House with a favorable
    recommendation.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye?
        All those opposed, signify by saying no?
        In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the
    motion is agreed to. Without objection, the motion to
    reconsider is laid on the table and staff is authorized to make
    any technical and conforming changes.
        This concludes consideration of the members noticed by the
    committee for today. I want to thank all the members for
    participating and I now yield to Ranking Member Meeks for any
    closing comments that he may have.
        Mr. Meeks. Just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we
    did this in a very orderly and timely fashion for our first
    markup. Look forward to continue to working with you and having
    Secretary Rubio before us soon. Thank you. Yield back.
        Chairman Mast. I thank the ranking member for his comments
    and his work and the members of the committee across the aisle
    for working on these bills.
        There being no further business to transact, the committee
    stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 2:24 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
    GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT