[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM REVIEW ENHANCEMENT ACT; NORTH KOREA STATE
SPONSOR OF TERRORISM DESIGNATION ACT OF 2016; AND WOMEN, PEACE, AND
SECURITY ACT OF 2016

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

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

H.R. 5484, H.R. 5208 and H.R. 5332

__________

JUNE 16, 2016

__________

Serial No. 114-197

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

___________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-456PDF WASHINGTON : 2016

_________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
MATT SALMON, Arizona KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
PAUL COOK, California ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas GRACE MENG, New York
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TED S. YOHO, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CURT CLAWSON, Florida BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
DANIEL DONOVAN, New York

Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director

Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

MARKUP ON

H.R. 5484, State Sponsors of Terrorism Review Enhancement Act.... 2
H.R. 5208, North Korea State Sponsor of Terrorism Designation Act
of 2016........................................................ 9
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5208 offered by
the Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................... 22
H.R. 5332, Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2016................ 34
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5332 offered by
the Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California, and chairman, Committee on
Foreign Affairs.............................................. 48
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H.R. 5332 offered by the Honorable William Keating, a
Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts............................................ 61

APPENDIX

Markup notice.................................................... 76
Markup minutes................................................... 77
Markup summary................................................... 79
The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign
Affairs: Statement from the Honorable Kristi L. Noem, a
Representative in Congress from the State of South Dakota...... 80
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York: Statement from the Honorable Janice D.
Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois....................................................... 81

STATE SPONSORS OF TERRORISM REVIEW ENHANCEMENT ACT; NORTH KOREA STATE
SPONSOR OF TERRORISM DESIGNATION ACT OF 2016; AND WOMEN, PEACE, AND
SECURITY ACT OF 2016

----------

THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2016

House of Representatives,

Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:50 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Royce. This committee will come to order. Pursuant
to notice, we meet today to mark up three measures.
Without objection, all members may have 5 days to submit
statements or extraneous material on today's business for the
record.
As members were notified yesterday, we intend to consider
today's measures en bloc.
So, without objection, the following items previously
provided to members will be considered en bloc and are
considered as read: H.R. 5484, the State Sponsors of Terrorism
Review Enhancement Act; H.R. 5208, the North Korea State
Sponsor of Terrorism Designation Act of 2016, with Poe
amendment 279 in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5208; and
H.R. 5332, the Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2016, with the
Royce amendment 123 in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5332
and the Keating amendment 72 to the Royce amendment.
[The information referred to follows:]H.R.
5484 deg.

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Chairman Royce. And after recognizing myself and the
ranking member, I will be pleased to recognize any member
seeking recognition to speak once on any of these measures.
So I will start here by thanking Mr. Ted Yoho for his work
on H.R. 5484. This is the State Sponsors of Terrorism Review
Enhancement Act.
Let me share with you why I think this is important. The
designation of a foreign government as a state sponsor of
terrorism is one of our Government's most powerful statements.
In addition to imposing sanctions and other restrictions, the
designation itself earns a state pariah status internationally.
And that is deserved, because all of these countries have
governments who back the killing of innocents, the killing of
innocent people, as a matter of policy.
Yet, under current law, to delist a state sponsor, the
administration only needs to certify that the country has
refrained from supporting terrorism for a mere 6 months. We
shouldn't be giving terrorist regimes a clean bill of health in
such a short time.
To address this, Mr. Yoho's legislation quadruples the time
that a designated country must refrain from sponsoring
terrorism before the President can remove that country from the
state sponsors of terrorism list. That means from 6 months to
24 months. And it doubles the time that Congress has to review
and potentially overturn the President's proposed removal of a
country from that list. In other words, it will no longer be 45
days. We will have 90 days to review that here. That
strengthens congressional oversight.
And, again, I want to thank Representative Yoho for his
leadership on this measure, which I urge all members to
support.
We also consider another bill on this topic, and that is
5208, requiring the State Department to report on the
designation of North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism. In
2008, North Korea's designation was rescinded following
commitments that it made to dismantle its nuclear weapons
program. North Korea got its delisting but kept its nuclear
program, as evidenced by its fourth nuclear test earlier this
year.
Since 2008, not only has North Korea's nuclear weapons
program advanced, but so has its support for terrorism. The Kim
regime has reportedly continued to supply surface-to-air
missiles and explosives to two organizations, both Hamas and
Hezbollah. It has shelled South Korean civilians on Yeonpyeong
Island, and it has attempted assassinations of North Korean
dissidents that live abroad.
This legislation requires the State Department to examine
these actions and report to Congress on whether North Korea
should be relisted as a state sponsor of terrorism.
And I want to thank the bill's author, Judge Ted Poe, who
has long pressed this issue, as well as the ranking member for
working with our offices on the refined text the committee is
taking up today. The flawed delisting of North Korea has also
been of particular focus to Chairman Emeritus Ros-Lehtinen.
And, finally, we consider H.R. 5332. This is the Women,
Peace, and Security Act of 2016.
In March, this committee held a hearing where we heard
powerful testimony about the importance of including women in
peace processes around the world. Simply put, when women are at
the negotiating table, peace is more likely. This bill
recognizes that it is in our national interest to advance
women's participation in preventing and resolving global
conflict and requires a governmentwide strategy to that effect.
In 2011, the administration issued a National Action Plan
on Women, Peace, and Security, and it has just published an
update. I want to note that the bill before us does not set
either plan into law. Rather, the bill identifies the many
bipartisan points of consensus around this issue and sets
specific goals, specific benchmarks, for women's participation
along with oversight from Congress to gauge progress.
And I want to thank Ranking Member Engel and the bill's
sponsors, Representatives Noem and Schakowsky, for their
bipartisan leadership. And I want to thank Representative
Keating for his good amendment today, which further increases
administration accountability.
I now recognize the ranking member for his remarks.
Mr. Engel. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this
markup.
I want to thank the members for their hard work of the
legislation we're considering today. I intend to vote ``yes''
on all the bills that we have before us.
Let me begin with Mr. Yoho's bill, the State Sponsors of
Terrorism Review Enhancement Act. Under current law, a state
sponsor of terrorism must end support for terrorism and be on
good behavior for 6 months before it can be taken off the list.
This legislation would expand that period from 6 months to 2
years.
I am certainly open to expanding the timeframe. And,
frankly, I cannot foresee any scenario in the near term in
which we would have an interest in removing the countries
currently on the list, particularly Iran and Syria. As we all
know, Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism,
and the Assad regime in Syria isn't too far behind.
But, as we move forward, we need to think about unintended
consequences. We may face scenarios in the years ahead with
countries that may not even be on our radar screen right now.
We need to ensure that we are not setting up road blocks to
potential diplomatic opportunities that aren't in America's
national security interest.
So I am not going to oppose this bill. I will support the
bill. But I think we need to keep an open mind going forward.
After all, in its current form, the administration does oppose
this measure, and we all want to advance legislation that
stands a chance of making it across the finish line. So I hope
with this bill, as it goes forward, we can make sure we are
taking the best possible approach.
Along the same line, I will turn to the bill offered by Mr.
Poe and Sherman, which aims to assess North Korea's bad
behavior and determine whether they should be put back on the
state sponsors of terrorism list. We all know the litany of the
Kim regime's troubling actions, atrocious human rights abuses,
assassinations, illegal nuclear program, and targeting other
countries using conventional, clandestine, and cyber tools. The
list goes on and on, yet the Bush administration removed North
Korea from the state sponsors of terrorism list in 2008. It was
part of the deal to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear
weapons program. But before the ink was dry on the agreement,
North Korea reneged on its commitments and returned to its
dangerous course.
I can't say I was surprised by this. I think we all know by
now, it was a bad deal. And you cannot believe anything the
North Korean regime says and does.
In the years since, we simply haven't gotten enough of or
the right kind of information for the administration to correct
this mistake and relist North Korea. This bill would press the
administration to conduct an evidence-based review on the
information we do have on North Korea to see if we can in fact
put them back on that list.
I think it is worth taking a closer look at this issue, and
that is what this measure does. I thank Mr. Poe and Mr. Sherman
for their efforts on this.
As reprehensible as North Korea is, I think we need to
consider if they actually are a state sponsor of terrorism.
They are awful in every way we can think, but I think there is
a fine line as to whether or not they may or may not be a
sponsor of terrorism, but I do think that this legislation
should be passed.
Finally, I am happy to support the Women, Peace, and
Security Act brought forward by Representatives Schakowsky and
Noem. Violent conflicts around the world hit women and girls
especially hard. At the same time, women can play an outsized
role in providing stability in communities, pushing back
against radical ideologies and countering violent extremism.
That is why, nearly 5 years ago, President Obama unveiled the
National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security to force on
the importance of women around the world in helping to prevent
and resolve conflicts. This legislation would build on those
efforts for making sure our foreign policy stays focused on
including women in conflict negotiation, promoting the physical
and economic security of women around the world, and working to
break down the barriers that have prevented the full
participation of women.
This is really a very important issue. Representative
Schakowsky has been driving this effort for years. I am glad we
have such strong bipartisan support to move this bill forward.
I would like to enter, Mr. Chairman, into the record a
statement of support from our colleague, Jan Schakowsky of
Illinois, on this Women, Peace and Security bill. She is one of
the authors of the bill, and I thank for her leadership on
these issues.
Chairman Royce. Without objection.
We go now to Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I rise in support of these--what I
consider to be--really significant pieces of legislation. And I
would like again to congratulate our chairman and ranking
member for their cooperation and their leadership on so many
issues like this and making sure that our committee is able to
actually get some things done. And I appreciate both of you,
and I appreciate this legislation today before us.
Let me make this pitch. Let's pass this bill, and let's
declare Pakistan a sponsor of terrorism. That is what it comes
down to if we really believe this. The evidence is overwhelming
that Pakistan has been supporting terrorist elements, not just
in Afghanistan, not just within Pakistan, but in different
parts of the world. We also have an arrogant display by
Pakistan of saying: Well, we don't care what you think; we are
actually going to put Dr. Afridi in a prison just so the whole
world will know that you can't tell us what to do, even when it
comes to terrorism.
As we remember, Dr. Afridi was the brave and courageous
Pakistani doctor who helped us locate Osama bin Laden. The man
that was involved with the massacre, in organizing the massacre
of 10,000 Americans--excuse me, 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Let us
remember that, as I am saying this, that it wasn't just that
they got Dr. Afridi in jail, but we should remember where did
Dr. Afridi find this man, find this criminal, this person, this
terrorist leader? Probably the worst terrorist in the 20th
century or the 21st century and they found him in the middle of
Pakistan, right next to their school where they trained their
military officers. And he was there for years. It is
deg.strains credibility of anybody who suggests we should
accept the idea that the Pakistani Government didn't know that
Osama bin Laden was right there as their guest for that many
years.
So, with that said, that alone should put Pakistan on the
list. But, right now, they are deeply involved in domestic
terrorism in the slaughter of Sindhis and the slaughter of
people in Baluchistan. What the people in Baluchistan are
trying to apparently get a vote so they can determine their own
destiny, which is their right. And I believe people everywhere
should have a right to vote on what country they are going to
be part of or whatever. In some cases, people were denied a
vote. In other cases, they were not only denied a vote, but
they suffered enormous murders of their people and suppression.
And that is what is going on in Baluchistan, and that is what
is going on with the Sindhis in Pakistan. And the Pakistani
Government is still engaged in helping groups like the Taliban
and others.
There was a Taliban leader, as we know, who was recently
tracked down and eliminated, thank God, by our military forces.
But where was that? Where was that Taliban leader? He was in
Pakistan, of course. And, of course, the Pakistani response to
us killing this terrorist leader was: You shouldn't have had--
your drones shouldn't have overflown our territory.
This is getting to be a sick game with the Pakistanis, with
us trying to ignore the fact of how evil they have become in
their cooperation with terrorism throughout the world.
So I support what we are doing here. I certainly agree with
the chairman's comments and Ranking Member Engel's comments
about North Korea, but I want to make sure that we know that we
are setting a standard, not just attacking North Korea here.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
Dr. Afridi should not have been jailed, and he should be
released immediately.
We go now to Mr. Brad Sherman from California.
Mr. Sherman. First, I would like to say I agree with at
least half of what the gentleman from California said about
Pakistan and would like to meet him halfway. If we don't
designate it a terrorist country, at least we could cut half
their aid until we see a substantial improvement in their
behavior, starting with, of course, Mr. Afridi and his family
coming here to the United States.
I want to thank the chairman for holding this markup. I
support each of the bills, and two of deg.bills deal
with the process of designating countries that support
terrorism. Our current law gives considerable, I think,
excessive discretion to the executive. In general, in foreign
policy, we have seen the growth of the imperial executive
branch over the last 20 years, and not only is this bad for our
constitutional values, but it hasn't led to a particularly good
foreign policy over the last 20 years.
So we have one bill, the State Sponsors of Terrorism Review
Enhancement Act, which would give the Congress 90 days to look
at removing from the list a country that has changed its
government. There are other rules for those where there has not
been a change of government, but we should remember that the
primary--and I would--future legislation might establish the
exclusive way to take a country off the terrorism list is to
submit a bill to Congress. So 90 days may be too long. A 2-year
period may, in some cases, not be the right one. But the best
way to get a country off the list is to submit a bill to
Congress, and it is Congress' obligation to act on that
promptly. When you look at the three countries that are on--
Sudan, Syria, and Iran--none of those countries should be taken
off without an act of Congress.
We have another bill, H.R. 5208, dealing with North Korea,
which Mr. Poe and I have introduced to have a process where
North Korea might be put back on the list. They should be on
the list. I would like to have legislation that simply puts
them on the list. But, at this point, I think it is a step
forward to have a process that I think should lead to that
conclusion. And others who have spoken have detailed all the
reasons why North Korea should be on that list today and should
have not been taken off.
I think we all support the Women, Peace, and Security Act,
and I think we will all support the Education for All Act. It
is true, as the bill states, that tens of millions of children
are not getting an education, and that is a crisis. But keep in
mind, in the year 2000, only 83 percent of the children
attended school. In 2015, that figure is up to 91 percent, but
we still need to do more.
I think we should take that opportunity to encourage USAID
to focus its expenditures on providing free textbooks. In sub-
Saharan Africa, where we have the greatest problem with
children not attending school, one of the reasons is that the
books cost $2 to $4 for the family. In many countries, kids
can't get the books. In Cameroon, there is 1 reading book for
every 12 students and 1 math book for every 14 students in the
second grade.
By providing free textbooks, we have some control over the
content. I am not saying that the book has to meet all American
standards, but we can at least have some influence on the
content of the education.
And, second, we prevent corruption. If textbooks in the
country are free, it is going to be hard to sell them on the
black market. It is a lot easier to steal cash than it is to
steal textbooks and then find a way to sell them in a country
where they are already free. So I look forward to dealing with
the crisis that continues in children not getting an education
and hope that it can be the United States rather than very poor
parents who are paying for the textbooks.
And I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
Mr. Chabot of Ohio.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was going to be brief, and I still will be brief, but
since my colleague brought up Dr. Afridi, I would just also
like to join in the chorus here to saying how outrageous it is
that the true hero of the effort in finding and dealing with
Osama bin Laden, rather than being treated as a hero, is
rotting in a jail cell in Pakistan. It is absolutely
outrageous.
And we have tried. Our leaders have recommended being quiet
about this. We are negotiating behind the scenes. I heard this
from the Obama administration innumerable times now: We don't
want to be too public about this. We are negotiating behind the
scenes.
He is still rotting in a damn jail cell, and it is
outrageous that the hero--so I commend my colleague Mr.
Rohrabacher for continuing to bring this up. Although, he is
still rotting in a jail cell.
Relative to North Korea, my colleagues have already said it
much better than I could. There is little question that North
Korea's antics are developing into a real threat to the United
States and our allies around the world.
China is the key, as it always has been, in putting
pressure on North Korea, but they do nothing. They give us
happy talk but, ultimately, no real pressure on North Korea.
They like keeping us off balance. I think that is the bottom
line there. But it is--North Korea is becoming a threat. And
they are becoming even more of a threat when there is little
doubt that they are transferring technology, nuclear
technology, and others to other bad actors around the globe in
the Middle East and elsewhere. So I commend my colleagues. I
commend the chairman and the ranking member for working in a
bipartisan manner to bring these bills before us, and I hope
they all pass. I urge my colleagues to support them.
I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Mr. David Cicilline from Rhode Island.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you and Ranking Member Engel for holding this
markup today. As always, I am pleased that this committee has
come together in the spirit of bipartisanship to pass
legislation that deals with a variety of important issues.
In particular, I want to express my strong support for H.R.
5332, the Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2016. I commend
myany deg. colleagues, Congresswomen Noem and
Schakowsky, for leading this bill, which highlights the
critical role of women in the prevention, management, and
resolution of conflicts, peace negotiations and peacebuilding,
humanitarian response, and post-conflict relief and recovery
efforts.
This bill codifies and builds upon the Obama
administration's 2011 Executive order, known as the U.S.
National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, a
governmentwide effort to institutionalize, amplify, and
coordinate initiatives directed at strengthening the role of
women in peacebuilding and conflict-prevention processes.
Women are often the most vulnerable victims during conflict
situations, but they have also played prominent roles in the
pursuit of peace. It is critical that we engage women around
the world in conflict prevention and resolution and strive to
ensure that their voices are heard. Women are key to conflict
resolution and peacebuilding, not only because they constitute
half the world's population but because of their roles as
leaders of their families and communities, especially during
times of war.
Women are also advocates for peace as peacekeepers, relief
workers, and mediators. The difficult task of peacebuilding
must be done by men and women in partnership. It is critical
that we recognize, reinforce, and promote women's leadership in
the realm of peace and security and do everything we can to
ensure their lives are protected, their experiences taken into
account, and their voices heard. Deadly conflicts can be
avoided and peace sustained when women are empowered as equal
partners in all aspects of peacebuilding and conflict
prevention.
I strongly support H.R. 5332, the Women, Peace, and
Security Act of 2016. And I urge my colleagues to support this
essential legislation.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cicilline. Yes, happy to yield.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would like to commend you, having gone
on a codel with you recently, and after what we suffered in
Orlando, we need to make sure that--and those of us who have
differences on what this means and how far you go on certain
rights issues, you have been a spokesman to make sure that
people overseas understand that we believe in individual rights
and freedom for all people, whatever their sexual preference
is. And I want to commend you for that. It raises this issue.
And, again we don't agree on all the details about what to do,
but we want to make sure that, especially after things like
Orlando and this horrible thing, that we stand together as
Americans and all these things. We have things that separate
us, different values and choices that we make in our lives,
but, in essence, we are Americans and stand together as a
family. And your vocalizing that has been very good overseas,
so thank you.
Mr. Cicilline. I thank the gentleman for the kind words.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you Mr. Cicilline.
We go to Mr. Joe Wilson of South Carolina.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Royce and Ranking Member
Engel, for convening this markup today.
We will be considering important measures to improve our
national security. I also appreciate Congressman Dana
Rohrabacher for his persistence for releasing Dr. Afridi, the
hero of identifying Osama bin Laden.
I would particularly like to thank Chairman Ted Poe of the
Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee for his
vision for authoring H.R. 5208, the North Korea State Sponsor
of Terrorism Designation Act of 2016.
I am grateful to be one of the few Members of Congress to
have ever visited the Hermit Kingdom with the opportunity to
travel there in 2003 with ranking member Eliot Engel. I saw
firsthand the struggle and oppression of its citizens which
they have endured under the totalitarian regime. It is no
secret that since the designation of state sponsor of terrorism
was rescinded in 2008, numerous reports have come out of
Pyongyang indicating that their support for terrorist groups
has continued.
Recently, we have also seen numerous acts of aggression,
which further demonstrate that the Kim dictatorship is just as
unpredictable and dangerous as ever. I am grateful Chairman
Poe's bill ensures the State Department does its due diligence
and strengthens congressional oversight of this important
issue.
I would again like to express my support for all the
measures considered by the committee today and urge their
passage.
And I yield back my time.
Chairman Royce. I think we are--Judge Ted Poe of Texas is
the next member seeking recognition.
Mr. Poe.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For 20 years, North Korea was designated as a state sponsor
of terrorism for its repeated support for international
terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
But, in 2008, the government, our Government, took North Korea
off the list for completely diplomatic reasons. North Korea was
delisted because it promised to dismantle its nuclear program.
We were conned.
Eight years and four nuclear tests later, it is clear that
North Korea lied, but they are still not on the list. Not only
did they not dismantle the nuclear program, they continued to
support international terrorism. In 2009, reports indicated
three North Korean arm shipments were bound for terrorist
groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. They were seized by the UAE,
Israel, and Thailand.
In 2014, Hamas reportedly brokered an agreement to purchase
communications equipment and rockets from North Korea.
And North Korea continues to proliferate weapons of mass
destruction to some of the most dangerous criminals in the
world. They have worked with Iran on intercontinental ballistic
missiles and have set up a nuclear reactor in Syria.
When I visited with Admiral Harris of the Pacific Command,
I asked him the question, of the five countries that are
threats to the U.S.--China, North Korea, Russia, ISIS, and
Iran--which of those is he the most concerned about? And he
quickly said North Korea. And so H.R. 5208 lays out a number of
these concerning incidents and requires the State Department to
respond to each one of them.
I want to thank Mr. Sherman from California for his support
and sponsorship of this. It also requires that the State
Department to justify in writing why North Korea is not back on
the state sponsor of terrorism list. And if they can't justify
it, then put North Korea on the list again. It is time to call
North Korea what they are: A state sponsor of terrorism. We
should look at them that way, especially in light of the fact
that they work with Iran, who is another state sponsor of
terrorism.
Very briefly, I do want to weigh in on Mr. Rohrabacher's
comments about Pakistan. Pakistan has proven they can't be
trusted as an ally. They play everybody. They support the
Taliban in Afghanistan, but they go after the Taliban in
Pakistan. They have imprisoned--who I think is a hero--Dr.
Afridi. They poisoned a CIA Director. At least he thinks they
were poisoned and he was poisoned by the military, ISI.
And the new Taliban leader, as has been pointed out, when
he was taken out on May 21st, where was he hiding? He was
hiding in the same country that Osama bin Laden was hiding,
Pakistan. And so they cannot be trusted as well. So I agree
with Mr. Rohrabacher and Mr. Sherman that at least we ought to
reconsider and maybe put half of Pakistan on the state sponsors
of terrorism list.
With that, I yield back to the chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Poe.
Now we go to Mr. Alan Grayson of Florida.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the comments that the members have made
regarding the specific countries that are coming under scrutiny
regarding their status as state sponsors of terrorism.
I want to address a completely different issue, and it is a
procedural one. I notice that the State Sponsors of Terrorism
Review Enhancement Act has in it, on page 6, a provision that
allows for a joint resolution regarding the rescission of a
country listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. In other words,
the procedure involved contemplated here is the President
rescinds someone on the list, and then Congress purportedly has
the power to prevent that from happening and keep someone on
the list. I regard that as unconstitutional, under the INS v.
Chadha decision from 1983. There is no such thing under our
Constitution as a legislative veto. It is a violation of the
Presentment Clause. We went through this actually just last
year with Senate Joint Resolution 8, where the President had to
issue a memorandum of disapproval reminding Congress that we
can't do that under the Constitution.
I also want to point out that this particular bill has no
saving clause in it. So, unfortunately, by including in this
bill a provision of extremely doubtful constitutionality, we
are running the risk that the whole bill ends up being for
nothing.
I would encourage my colleagues not to put legislative veto
provisions like this one in bills that pass through this
committee or are offered otherwise in the House of
Representatives. I think that they will lead to a great deal of
mischief down the line. And I want to remind all of our
colleagues that we took an oath to uphold the Constitution,
including the Presentment Clause in it.
I yield back.
Chairman Royce. I think Mr. Grayson has raised a point
here.
I would point out that, under current law, under the Arms
Export Control Act, this is in fact the law. What we are
talking about doing is extending the period of time from 45
days to 90 days. But, in point in fact, this has not been yet
overturned by a court, nor has the issue been raised by the
State Department, nor has a court challenge been raised to this
issue. So, arguably, under the law of the land, the current
interpretation is that the existing statute is legal and so
what we are talking about is getting an across-the-board
agreement in terms of the timeframe when Congress could act
which would be more effective, and that it would be a 90-day
period.
Mr. Grayson. If I may reclaim my time.
Chairman Royce. Yes, Mr. Grayson.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This issue has come up twice now with the Supreme Court,
both with the INS v. Chadha case and also with the line-item
veto cases. On both occasions, the court made it clear that the
only way that we can act is if we pass a bill or a resolution,
as the case may be, the Senate passes the same bill or a
resolution, and the President signs it, or we overturn his
veto. Joint resolutions simply don't work.
I am aware of the fact that the, under the Arms Export
Control Act, no one has put the screws to that provision the
way we have seen with regard to the Chadha case or with regard
to the line-item veto case yet, but it is inevitable that it
will happen. It will happen sooner or later. And because we
want our bills that we pass here in the House to pass and meet
constitutional muster, we really should be a little bit more
circumspect about putting very aggressive provisions in our
bills, in my opinion, that could very well lead to the
unconstitutionality of bills and throwing out the baby with the
bath water.
I yield back.
Chairman Royce. I understand the gentleman's point.
A joint resolution is a new statute under the
interpretation of the House and the Senate. And so, in fact, if
a joint resolution is a new statute, then we would have
standing. But perhaps this would all be taken up at some point
by court challenge, but as of to date, we haven't had any
challenge on this particular issue.
Mr. Grayson. Reclaiming my time.
Chairman Royce. Allowing Mr. Grayson to reclaim his time,
and then I will go to Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Grayson. Yes, one last time. The fact that a joint
resolution can be deemed as being equivalent to a bill doesn't
make it kosher, if you will, under these circumstances because
the bill, as written, indicates that the joint resolution
itself is enough to rescind the President's action when, in
fact, in order to make it proper, under the Presentment Clause,
you would need a joint resolution and the President's
signature, which is something that still does not provide for
and, therefore, in my opinion, is in fact unconstitutional.
I yield.
Chairman Royce. Yes, but this joint resolution will require
a Presidential signature, just by way of explanation, that we
are passing here.
But let me go to Mr. Sherman for his point.
Mr. Sherman. We could avoid these constitutional issues by
just passing a bill that says: North Korea, Iran, Sudan, and
Syria are on the list, and they can't be taken off without
congressional approval. That would take a more robust statement
of Congress and a willingness to override the veto of whichever
President is trying to trivialize the role of Congress in
foreign policy, which is to say all of them that I am familiar
with.
So I do think that the chairman may be right in
distinguishing between a joint resolution and a concurrent
resolution, but I would prefer we be passing stronger
legislation today and avoid whatever pitfalls the gentleman
from Florida brings up. And I want to thank him for bringing
those to our attention.
Chairman Royce. I would like to also--if the gentleman
would yield.
Mr. Sherman. Yes.
Chairman Royce. I would also like to thank Mr. Grayson for
raising these points, but I would conclude with the argument
that a joint resolution is a new law, just like an H.R., in
that it does require--in this case, it requires a Presidential
signature, just to reiterate that point.
Mr. Yoho of Florida has requested time.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Engel.
I appreciate the bipartisan support, and I stand too with
the release of Dr. Afridi. Currently, there are two common
paths for removing a foreign government from the designation.
The first option is that the President certifies that there has
been a fundamental change in the leadership and the policies of
the government and that the new government does not support
terrorism. This is obviously a more difficult standard.
The other path to a rescission from the list is that the
President certifies that the government has not provided
support for acts of international terrorism during the
preceding 6 months. This is a woefully inadequate metric to be
considered for removal from the state sponsors of terrorism
list, more so in today's environment with so much uncertainty
and instability in the world. This easier path has often led to
politically motivated rescission from the Presidents on both
sides of the aisle.
In 2008, President Bush removed North Korea, and in 2014,
President Obama removed Cuba. This again is something
Republican and Democrat Presidents have used throughout the
past. For instance, as has already been pointed out, Iraq was
removed from the list in 1982, relisted in 1990, and removed
again in 2004.
My bill will make it more difficult for politically
motivated removals and increase congressional oversight and
scrutiny. It will increase, as you pointed out, or quadruple
the time a designated country must refrain from sponsoring
terrorism before a President can remove it from the sponsor
list from 6 months to 24. This will beseech countries with bad
habits, like sponsoring, supporting, or harboring terrorists,
to create good habits for a longer period of time for review.
In addition, as you pointed out, it increases congressional
oversight by doubling the time Congress has to review the
President's proposed removal from 45 to 90 days, and as Mr.
Grayson pointed out, the President's authority to designate and
remove from the designation of terror states, he is right. But
also Congress has a role, and we are just asking to increase
that.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Yoho.
And if no one else is seeking time, the question then
occurs on the items considered en bloc.
All those in favor, say aye.
Those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
measures considered en bloc are agreed to.
Without objection, the measures are favorably reported, as
amended.
Staff is directed to make any technical and conforming
changes. Also, without objection, the Chair is authorized to
seek House consideration of these measures under suspension of
the rules.
And that concludes our business today.
Again, I want to thank all the members.
I want to thank our deg.Ranking Member Engel and
everyone's contributions here and assistance with today's
markup.
This committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

----------

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[all]