[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