[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MARKUP OF H.R. 3501, H.Res. 326, H.Res. 246, H.R. 1850, H.R. 1837,
H.Res. 138, H.Con.Res 32, H.Res. 442, H.R. 2097, AND H.Res. 127
=======================================================================
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
July 17, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-56
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC 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
37-050PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York Member
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida JOE WILSON, South Carolina
KAREN BASS, California SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts TED S. YOHO, Florida
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
AMI BERA, California LEE ZELDIN, New York
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin
DINA TITUS, Nevada ANN WAGNER, Missouri
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York BRIAN MAST, Florida
TED LIEU, California FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLPS, Minnesota JOHN CURTIS, Utah
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota KEN BUCK, Colorado
COLIN ALLRED, Texas RON WRIGHT, Texas
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania GREG PENCE, Indiana
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
DAVID TRONE, Maryland MIKE GUEST, Mississippi
JIM COSTA, California
JUAN VARGAS, California
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas
Jason Steinbaum, Democrat Staff Director
Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
TEXT OF H.R. 3501
H.R. 3501........................................................ 3
MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Article submitted for the record from Representative Chabot...... 22
ADDITIONAL TEXT AND AMENDMENTS FOR H.R. 3501 AND H.RES. 326
Amendment to H.R. 3501 offered by Mr. Burchett................... 26
Amendment to H.R. 3501 offered by Mr. Perry...................... 33
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.Res. 326 offered by
Ms. Bass....................................................... 40
BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, AND AMENDMENTS EN BLOC
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.Res. 246 offered by
Mr. Engel...................................................... 52
Amendment to H.Res. 246 offered by Mr. Zeldin.................... 56
H.R. 1850........................................................ 58
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1837 offered by
Mr. Deutch..................................................... 84
H.Res. 138....................................................... 123
Amendment to H.Res. 138 offered by Mr. Wilson.................... 126
H.Con. Res. 32................................................... 128
H.Res. 442....................................................... 133
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.Res. 442 offered by
Mr. Malinowski................................................. 140
H.R. 2097........................................................
H.Res. 127....................................................... 151
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 173
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 175
Hearing Attendance............................................... 176
Markup Summary................................................... 177
MARKUP OF H.R. 3501, H.Res. 326, H.Res. 246, H.R. 1850, H.R. 1837,
H.Res. 138, H.Con.Res 32, H.Res. 442, H.R. 2097, AND H.Res. 127
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eliot Engel
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Engel [presiding]. The committee will come to
order.
Pursuant to notice, we meet today to mark up 10 measures.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any point.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 4, the chair announces that the
chair may postpone further proceedings on approving any measure
or matter or adopting an amendment.
Without objection, all members may have 5 days to submit
statements or extraneous materials on today's business.
The text of the 10 noticed measures was circulated in
advance to offices, and members were also notified yesterday
that we intend to first consider H.R. 3501, the Safeguard our
Elections and Combat Unlawful Interference in our Democracy
Act.
And this will be followed by the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to H.Res. 326, expressing the sense of the House
regarding United States' efforts to resolve the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict through a negotiated two-State solution.
And finally, we will move on to consider the eight
remaining measures en bloc, which consist of:
The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.Res. 246,
opposing efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel and the
Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement targeting
Israeli, with a Zeldin amendment;
H.R. 1850, the Palestinian International Terrorism Support
Prevention Act of 2019;
The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1837,
the United States-Israel Cooperation Enhancement and Regional
Security Act;
H.Res. 138, expressing support for addressing the Arab-
Israeli conflict in a concurrent track with the Israeli-
Palestinian peace process and commending Arab and Muslim-
majority States that have improved bilateral relations with
Israel, with a Wilson amendment;
H.Con.Res 32, expressing the sense of Congress regarding
the execution-style murders of United States citizens Ylli,
Agron, and Mehmet Bytyqi in the Republic of Serbia in July
1999;
H.Res. 442, observing 10 years since the war in Sri Lanka
ended on May 18, 2009, commemorating the lives lost and
expressing support for transitional justice, reconciliation,
reconstruction, reparation, and reform in Sri Lanka which is
necessary to ensure a lasting peace, with a Malinowski
amendment in the nature of a substitute;
H.R. 2097, Legacies of War Recognition and Unexploded
Ordnance Removal Act,
And H.Res. 127, expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives on the importance and vitality of the United
States alliances with Japan and the Republic of Korea and our
trilateral cooperation in the pursuit of shared interests.
Pursuant to notice, for purposes of markup, I now call up
H.R. 3501, the Safeguard our Elections and Combat Unlawful
Interference in our Democracy Act.
The clerk will report the bill.
Ms. Stiles. ``H.R. 3501, to expose and deter unlawful and
subversive foreign interference in elections for Federal
office, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the''----
Chairman Engel. Without objection, the first reading of the
bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill shall be
considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
[The bill H.R. 3501 follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Engel. At this time, I recognize myself to speak
on the legislation. I will keep my remarks brief.
Shortly after the 2016 election, when we learned more about
Russia putting its thumb on the scale to help Donald Trump's
campaign, Mr. Connolly and I introduced this legislation to
punish and deter foreign interference in an American election.
It is simple. Going back to 2015 and extending into the
future, if a foreign individual or entity is found to have
interfered with an American election, they would be subject to
sanctions, freezing any assets on American soil, visa denials
to keep them out of the country. The message is clear: if you
meddle with an American election from overseas, there are going
to be consequences.
It seems pretty straightforward to me, but I am
disappointed that our friends on the other side of the aisle
have so far not been willing to support the measure. The
reason, we have been told--and this goes back a few years--is,
well, they do not think it should be retroactive. I beg to
disagree. I think not enough has been done to hold accountable
those who stuck their noses in our elections in 2016.
``We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an
influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential
election.'' And let me quote that again because it is words of
the United States intelligence community. Quote: ``We assess
Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign
in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election.''
Special Counsel Robert Mueller said, quote, ``The Russian
government interfered in the 2016 Presidential election in
sweeping and systematic fashion.'' That is a quote from Special
Counsel Robert Mueller.
It is true the administration imposed some sanctions, but
the response so far simply does not fit the crime. And every
time the President is pressed on the issue, he shrugs it off.
Just look at the way he acted a few weeks ago, sitting next to
Putin at the G20. He does not take the problem seriously. So,
we have to.
To be honest, the notion that we should not punish a
foreigner who interfered in our election is bizarre and
contrary to the need to keep American elections sacrosanct.
Because if we do not look backward, if we just let Russia off
the hook for what they did in 2016, what is going to stop them
or others from trying the same thing again? That is why this
bill needs to go back to the last election, not just look into
the future.
If you are interested in protecting American democracy, if
we want to send a message to Putin and his cronies that our
elections are sacrosanct, I cannot imagine why we would oppose
this bill. Because as we get closer and closer to the next
election, the American people are going to want to know, did
you do everything in your power to make sure our election is
safe? Did you do everything you could to guarantee that the
American people are choosing their leaders, and not some
foreign power picking our leaders? And if we do not move this
bill forward, we will not have done enough and we certainly
will not have done everything in our power, in my opinion.
So, I urge my colleagues to vote yes, all of my colleagues.
I thank Mr. Connolly for working with me on this measure.
And now, I will recognize our ranking member, Mr. McCaul of
Texas, for any remarks he might have.
Mr. McCaul. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today, our committee will mark up 10 measures. I would like
to first focus on a few of the good, bipartisan bills and
resolutions that committee Republicans and Democrats have
worked on together.
I fully support the Palestinian International Terrorism
Support Prevention Act, introduced by Mr. Mast, which would
impose sanctions on those like Iran who provide support to
Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Hamas is a U.S.-designated
foreign terrorist organization that has killed more than 400
Israelis and 25 American citizens since 1993. Earlier this
year, Hamas launched more than 600 rockets into Israel in a
single weekend, resulting in four civilian casualties,
including an American citizen.
This legislation requires the administration to sanction
any individuals determined to support Hamas. If you support a
terrorist group that kills civilians, then you should be
subject to U.S. sanctions. It is just that simple.
I would also like to thank my colleagues Mr. Deutch and Mr.
Wilson for introducing the United States-Israel Cooperation
Enhancement and Regional Security Act. This is a comprehensive,
bipartisan bill that updates our civil and security cooperation
with Israel. Specifically, it reauthorizes our security
assistance to Israel and updates existing law to ensure we can
quickly supply Israel with defense articles in an emergency.
We will also be considering a bipartisan resolution,
introduced by Representatives Schneider and Zeldin, opposing
efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel and condemning the
Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, or BDS, Movement. The BDS
Movement unfairly targets Israel with economic, cultural, and
academic boycotts.
I am proud to support this measure, although I would have
preferred that the committee consider my comprehensive bill,
H.R. 336, which includes actual policy provisions to help the
United States combat BDS, in addition to sanctions on the side
and assistance for Israel and Jordan.
While over 171 Democrats support the resolution we are
considering today, none have signed the discharge petition to
bring my bill to the floor for a vote. I would encourage any
colleagues that would be interested to go one step further in
support of Israel and sign the petition.
Mr. Chairman, I am also disappointed that, while we are
considering many bipartisan measures here today, we are also
considering House Resolution 326, a one-sided take on the
Israel-Palestinian conflict. It goes out of its way to rebut
the current administration's nascent peace efforts and blames
Israel for undermining the peace process. It does not mention
the Palestinian Authority's practice of paying individuals who
commit acts of terrorism. It adds nothing positive to the
conversation. And what it does do is antagonize one of our
closest partners while undermining this administration's
ongoing efforts. And therefore, I must oppose that resolution.
Last, I am concerned with the Safeguard our Elections and
Combat Unlawful Interference in our Democracy Act. Let me begin
by saying I want to pit my record on being tough on Russia
against anyone's in Congress. I voted for CAATSA, which
authorizes sanctions for the 2016 interference. I voted against
the de-listing of Russia earlier this year.
But this bill needs to be refined. As written, this
legislation is more about politics than policy, and it seems to
ignore the substantial taken by both Congress and the
administration, not to mention the millions of dollars spent
investigating the Russian interference. The administration has
sanctioned 18 people under CAATSA, and the Department of
Justice secured indictments during the Mueller probe for 12
Russian nationals, all for attempted interference in the 2016
election.
In fact, for the past 3 years, the American people have
heard more about Russian meddling in our 2016 elections, more
than any other issue out of Washington. To require another
review of that action now would redirect resources for
political purposes that should be used to prevent these types
of attacks in the future.
So, I urge my colleagues to support the Burchett amendment,
so that we can have forelooking, bipartisan bill that will
authorize action against those who attempt to interfere in
future Federal elections.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Engel. The gentleman yields back.
I am aware of only one amendment to this measure.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Engel. Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair. I would like to just
address the bill you and I have introduced now in three
Congresses.
Chairman Engel and I first introduced this bill in December
2016, following broad consensus among the U.S. intelligence
community that Russia directed a deliberate effort to interfere
with the U.S. election process in 2016. We reintroduced it in
2017, after the U.S. intelligence community published an
unclassified report detailed an unprecedented, deliberate, and
multifaceted campaign by Russia to interfere in the 2016
election. I do not know whether the ranking member thinks they
were playing politics, but that was their finding in an
unclassified report.
And we reintroduced it in this Congress for the third time,
after the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller's report concluded,
and I quote from Robert Mueller's report, ``The Russian
government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency
and worked to secure that outcome through hacking and
distributing stolen information in 2016.''
Russia's unprecedented interference in the 2016
Presidential election should trouble every American and every
member of this committee. One of our most cherished
institutions, democratic elections free of foreign
interference, was attacked.
And Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats has
confirmed--by the way, the former Republican Senator from
Indiana, hardly a liberal Democrat playing politics--he
confirmed that foreign actors, including Russia, continued to
interfere during the 2018 midterm elections and, quote, ``are
already looking to the 2020 elections as an opportunity to
advance their interests.''
Santayana said, if we do not learn the past, we are
condemned to repeat the mistakes of that time. We have to
acknowledge what happened in 2016. To support the amendment
that is going to be offered by Mr. Burchett is essentially to
whitewash history. It is to close our eyes and ears and pretend
that did not happen and our only concern is prospective. That
is a false reading of history. In fact, it is intellectually
dishonest if we agree to it.
None of us like our motives questioned. And I want to say
to my friend, the ranking member, my motive is to protect the
integrity of the American electoral system. It is not to play
politics. That is why we have introduced this bill three times.
In the last Congress, the then-chairman of this committee
made an offer both to Mr. Engel and myself. He said, we will
mark up your bill, whole and entire, on one condition: you drop
all reference to 2016. As a matter of principle, we refused. We
felt that pretending 2016 did not happen, frankly, tainted the
entirety of the bill.
The integrity of our election process is at stake, and this
committee has yet to speak to it, even though it was a foreign
player, an adversary, Vladimir Putin's Russia, that was the
agent, confirmed by our intelligence community.
So, I urge my colleagues not only to support the bill as
submitted by the chairman and myself, finally after three
Congresses, but also to resist this amendment that rewrites
history.
I yield back.
Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Connolly.
Does any other member wish to be recognized or speak on the
measure or would offer an amendment?
Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Engel. Yes, Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word.
Chairman Engel. Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have markups in three committees, this committee,
Judiciary going on right now, and then, I am ranking member on
Small Business and we have a markup going on there. So, I would
like to comment briefly on this and a couple of other bills.
First, I would like to focus on the pro-Israel legislation.
Israel is a friend and ally, the foremost democracy in the
Middle East and a critical partner on so many issues from Iran
to economic issues like technology. Israel is in a tough
neighborhood, as we all know, and we ought to do whatever we
can to support their security and advance our shared interests.
That is why I am a cosponsor, along with Mr. Deutch and Mr.
Wilson, on H.R. 1837. And not only does it codify the MOU
between our two nations to help maintain Israel's qualitative
military edge, something the Senate, by the way, dropped the
bill in the last Congress, but it includes several other
cooperative programs to strengthen our bilateral relationship.
Likewise, I am an original cosponsor on Mr. Mast's H.R.
1850, which would sanction Hamas for its truly deplorable
terrorist attacks that are a constant source of fear for
Israeli citizens and which prevents Gaza from ever being a
normal place.
I would also like to turn to BDS. I am glad that we are
finally marking up a measure on BDS, H.Res. 246, and I want to
thank Mr. Schneider and Zeldin for their work on this important
issue. I could go into that, but I will move on to something
else.
It is fundamentally counterproductive in resolving the
differences between Israel and its neighbors because--excuse
me. Relative to the one-State solution bill, we are in
opposition to that. Antisemitism has no place in America, in
Congress, or in this committee. That is why it is well past
time that we passed a measure condemning BDS. And I would urge
my colleagues to support that resolution.
In addition to the bills on Israel, I would like to briefly
touch on H.Res. 127, which affirms the important trilateral
cooperation between the U.S., Japan, and South Korea. I want to
thank Mr. Engel and Ranking Member McCaul for their work on
that.
As a former chairman of the Asia-Pacific Subcommittee and
having visited both countries a number of times, I believe that
cooperation between us is critical to peace in the Indo-Pacific
and counterbalancing China's ambitions. Unfortunately,
relations between Japan and South Korea keep getting worse over
World War II grievances. While they have sensitive issues
between them, if they cannot mend their partnership, China will
be the only winner.
This point was made very well in an article in the South
China Morning Post last week titled, ``How China Can Win a
Trade War Between Japan and South Korea,'' and I would ask
unanimous consent that that article be included in the record.
Chairman Engel. Yes, without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Chabot. And I yield back my time at this point, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Kinzinger. Mr. Chairman, point of inquiry? Mr.
Chairman?
Chairman Engel. Yes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Are we on opening statements or are----
Chairman Engel. No.
Mr. Kinzinger [continuing]. We considering the bill?
Chairman Engel. We are going to do the bill.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
Chairman Engel. I let Mr. Chabot make his statement because
he had to go, but we are going to go back to the bill.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Engel. OK. Does any member wish to be recognized
for the purpose of offering an amendment to the Secure
Democracy Act?
Mr. Burchett.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
members of the committee.
The amendment I offer today would ensure that the penalties
prescribed in this bill are forward-looking instead of
retreading the ground of the 2016 election, which has already--
--
Chairman Engel. OK. Would the gentleman suspend? I am
sorry.
Let me make sure that the clerk designates the amendment.
Ms. Stiles. ``Burchett Amendment No. 1.
Insert after Section 1 the following:
Section 2, Finding.''
Chairman Engel. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment will be dispensed with.
[The amendment of Mr. Burchett follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Engel. A point of order is reserved.
And Mr. Burchett.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congress passed, and President Trump signed, the Countering
America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act in 2017. Since that
time, the administration has sanctioned 18 individuals for
attempted interference in the 2016 Presidential election under
that law. Furthermore, the Department of Justice has secured
criminal indictments of 12 Russian nationals for election
interference in the course of the Mueller probe.
I agree with the intelligence community that Russia
attempted to alter the outcome of the 2016 Presidential
election. Such behavior is unacceptable and we should always
take strong action when the foundation of our democratic system
of government, the right to vote, is threatened by our
adversaries. In this case, we have done just that.
However, the bill before us, absent any context, makes it
appear that neither Congress nor the administration has done
anything to address this behavior, when, in fact, a law has
already been enacted and implemented, and to do exactly what
the legislation purports to do. Focusing on the 2016 election I
think is more about political points than actual results.
Passing this bill as is sends a message to the career civil
servants in Treasury, the lawyers and investigators at the
Department of Justice, and to the administration that your work
is insufficient and halfhearted. And given the volume of
sanctions and indictments that have resulted from this hard
work, that is a message I am unwilling to send.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, so that our
resources can be used to focus on and to address any potential
threat of our elections, and not waste the people's money for
political gain.
And, in conclusion, I would tell you, I think that if this
were actually whitewashing, as was described by my colleague
and friend across the aisle, that this was whitewashing
history, then why do not we say whose watch it was actually
under and who was in the White House at that time, Mr.
Chairman?
Thank you very much for your time, and I yield the rest of
my time back. Thank you.
Chairman Engel. I thank the gentleman.
I will first recognize myself to speak on this amendment
briefly.
I must respectfully oppose what my friend has offered here.
The purpose of this legislation is not to rehash the last
Presidential election. That is not why we wrote it to reach
back to 2015. This is a question of whether enough has been
done to respond to the attack on our democracy, and in my view
the answer is clearly no.
This is no small matter. A hostile foreign government has
no business messing with our elections, period. I do not care
if they are doing it to help Republicans or Democrats; I do not
want them interfering.
And the Trump Administration's actions to push back, in my
opinion, have been inadequate. They drafted an Executive Order
that could have made a difference, but never used it. In fact,
the language in this bill mirrors that Executive Order. And
frankly, the President seems to be living in the past. He
continues to deny that Russia was responsible for attacking our
democracy. He sides with Vladimir Putin over our own
intelligence community. And how can we possibly expect this
measure to serve as a deterrent if we let the people who did it
the first time off scot-free? The President seems like he may
welcome another round of interference. By refusing to say
whether he would report foreign interference to the FBI, he has
opened the door to another attack. I thought that he and Putin
at the G20--I just cringed when I watched what was happening.
So, if the executive branch will not do the job, we have
to. And that is why it is essential that this bill, in my
opinion, look backward as well as forward.
I oppose my friend's amendment and I urge all members to do
the same.
Do any other members wish to be recognized to speak on this
amendment?
Mr. Kinzinger. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Engel. Mr. Kinzinger.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Engel. Five minutes.
Mr. Kinzinger. While I will probably, more than likely,
vote with my colleagues on this side of the aisle on every
following thing, I just respectfully say that I will oppose the
gentleman's substitute amendment and support the underlying
bill.
I have no doubt that this bill is largely for messaging,
and that does bother me. But I think it is correct that Russia
attempted to undermine our democracy, that not enough has been
done to recognize and pay for that, and that we have to send,
as a Nation, as Republicans and Democrats, a very strong
message that, even if we found everybody involved in the 2016
election, which I do not think we have, but even if we have,
this committee is sending a message that we will continue to
watch for signs of anybody who had any involvement up to that
point, as well as anybody that will have involvement after.
Now the thing that I would ask my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle is resist the temptation to make this about
politics, and let's do our best to make this about our country.
Because the best thing that Russia can do is not to meet us on
the battlefield, not to create more nuclear weapons, but to
undermine the very foundation of democracy and the very belief
that your vote counts in an election. Because when people feel
their vote does not count, whether it is through interference,
through influence, through hacking, if you feel that way, you
lose faith in the institution of Congress; you lose faith in
the institution of the presidency, and you lose faith in your
government.
And that faith in the government is the only thing, Mr.
Chairman, that makes democracy work. It is the only thing.
Without it, this is just a bunch of people sitting around and
talking, and we have nobody back home looking at us for
guidance or leadership because they do not trust us; they do
not believe us, and they are not even sure if we won the
election.
So, this is a difficult position for me on this, and I
appreciate Mr. Burchett's amendment. I know where his heart is.
I know he means well on this, and I know all my colleagues do,
too. But I feel like we have not done enough to recognize the
reality of what exists, and the more messages we can send, the
stronger and the more bipartisan we can send those messages,
the more that we prevent this from happening again in the
future.
Because, to my Republican friends, it is going to happen
against us. To my Democratic friends, it is going to happen
against you. And when some weird third party comes along, it is
going to happen against them. And it is going to go on for the
rest of American times, for the rest of our future history,
unless we get a hold of this. And I think now is the moment to
do that. So, with a heavy heart, I say I will oppose my
friend's amendment, and I will support the underlying bill.
Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield?
Mr. Kinzinger. I will.
Mr. Connolly. I want to salute the gentleman from Illinois.
I know it is not easy. And I also want to give him assurance,
because I co-wrote this bill. This comes from a deep commitment
to our country that is bipartisan. It is not about positioning
or messaging, I give him my word. This is about protecting our
country.
And this is the first time, I say to my friend, that this
committee in 3 years has spoken about this issue directly. And
it is aimed at Russia and other would-be interferers with our
election process. That is the intent, no other.
And I salute my friend for his courage and conviction.
I yield back to him.
Mr. Kinzinger. And I yield back my time. Thank you.
Chairman Engel. OK. Thank you.
Do any other members seek recognition?
Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I support H.R. 3501. The new cold war is not about the
Berlin Wall, although our Nation, the White House is trying to
build a wall somewhere else. It is not about missiles or the
armed race necessarily, although we are concerned about
countries that are not our friends developing nuclear arsenals.
The new cold war is about cybersecurity, fundamentally about,
in this particular debate, about how Russia, as per Volume I of
the Mueller report, interferes in our electoral system.
This is critical because the basis of our democracy, the
deep-rooted basis of our democracy is our electoral system,
where my vote is just as equal as anybody's votes here in this
audience. And to have a foreign country which has ill will
against America interfere, deliberately, pre-meditatively,
maliciously interfere in our electoral process constitutes a
clear and present danger. And this is the new cold war. It is
cyber-driven.
This bill I think goes a long way to answer to that, not
just to Russia, but any future nation, China, anybody that will
choose to engage in this kind of action. And so, I support it.
I will not vote for this amendment. I would like to see the
content of the original bill adopted into law.
And I want to thank, Mr. Chairman, the authors and the
cosponsors. I am a current cosponsor of the bill, and I will be
voting in the affirmative.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Engel. Thank you.
The gentleman yields back. Do other members seek
recognition?
Mr.--is that Perry?--yes, Mr. Perry, 5 minutes.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For the record, I support the gentleman from Tennessee's
amendment, but I do want to applaud and acknowledge the
interest on the other side for finally recognizing--the
Russians have been meddling in the United States, in our
democracy, since the 1930's, if not before. They have been
meddling, and it has been ignored by this town over and over
again. Republicans have always been on the side of stopping the
communists, the socialists, and their meddling in the United
States, whether it is Harry Hopkins in the Roosevelt White
House, John Service heading to China and choosing Mao Zedong
over Chiang Chai-Shek, you name it, whether it was the Venona
transcripts that literally proved that everything--whether you
liked his methods or not--that a great Senator tried to point
out the communist interference in our government.
It is high time, and I do want to recognize and acknowledge
and thank the other party, our gentle friends, the gentlemen
and gentleladies on the other side, for recognizing this threat
and being willing to do something about it. We applaud you and
we are with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Perry.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. I support the bill. Interference in our
election is an attack on America. The bill imposes sanctions on
particular individuals who were involved in that.
I want to bring to the attention of the committee a
provision that we were able to add to the NDAA that also
imposes sanctions on Russia, but on the Russian State rather
than Russian individuals. That provision says that no American
entity can invest in Russian sovereign debt. And while this
provision has gone mostly unnoticed here in the United States,
it has been noticed in Moscow.
As we work on this bill, I think it is important that we
indicate what constitutes interference in elections. If Putin
wants to sign a favorable intermediate-range missile treaty
with the United States, and he chooses to do it 2 days before
our election, it would be great if we could get such a
favorable treaty. If RT TV, their media outlet, wants to
editorialize, that is fine. They are doing it in their own
name, and Americans watching know they are watching Moscow
propaganda.
I think it is important, as we move through the process,
that this bill be limited to things that are wrongful that
affect our election, including messing with the vote tabulation
system and the vote casting system; voter registration rolls,
et cetera; false flag communications where hackers in St.
Petersburg pretend to be accountants in the San Fernando
Valley, and the theft, whether it be physical or cyber theft,
of information. Because I do not want us to be accused of
chilling free speech, RT TV can say whatever it wants, just as
other media outlets do. The provision that we passed as part of
NDAA does just that. It defines what is and what is not
interference in our election.
And this bill is necessary. The response so far to the
Russian interference on our elections has been negligible. A
few individuals, I believe, have been told they cannot get
visas. We need to do far, far more.
So, I look forward to working with the authors of this
provision to make sure that we deter Russia from interfering in
future elections. And I think that if Russia can go through the
2020 cycle without interfering, that at that point we should
lift some or all of the sanctions imposed for their past
interference, not because their past interference is not
wrongful enough to justify permanent sanctions, but because
they ought to have some incentive to forgo what the last
speaker just identified has been a decades-long practice of
illegal interference in our elections.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Wilson.
OK. Do any other members seek recognition?
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I pass.
Chairman Engel. Oh, OK.
Mr. Wilson. So, proceed. Thank you.
Chairman Engel. Any other members on the Republican side
seek recognition?
OK. Ms. Houlahan.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And the Foreign Affairs Committee has historically been a
committee that champions bipartisanship, and I am really
grateful to you, Mr. Chair, and also to Ranking Member McCaul,
for having strived to maintain that commitment. Whether we like
it or not, bipartisanship is what serves the American people
best, and reaching across the aisle allows us to pass
legislation that moves our country forward.
And the bill today, as I think many of us have recognized,
could not be more urgent. And as many of us have also
recognized on both sides of the aisle, Russia did interfere in
our 2016 election. It is an established fact, confirmed by our
best intelligence. And I hope that I speak for all my
colleagues today when I say that any foreign adversary who
interferes in our democracy must be held accountable,
regardless of when it happened.
However, I am really not naive to the difficult position
that my Republican colleagues are in. This bill should not feel
like a referendum on the 2016 election, and I can really
appreciate why some people might feel that way.
So, last night I did reach across the aisle with what I
believe to be an amenable solution, to push back the date in
this bill from January 1st, to retroactively include any
interference from foreign adversaries in the 2012 Obama
Administration election as well, not necessarily because there
is any evidence of interference in that election, as there was
in 2016, because I wanted and we wanted to make it clear that
this is not about relitigating the outcome of the 2016
election, but, rather, about the health of our democracy.
Frankly, if it were not for the burden it would place on
our State Department, I would propose pushing it all the way
back to the 1930's or to 1776. There must be accountability for
foreign interference in one of the founding principles of our
Republic, the right of the American people to democratically
elect our own representatives. It should be investigated and
punished, regardless of when it happened.
So, I offer the 2012 date in an effort to make this a
bipartisan bill, to give us all the chance to send a resounding
message to the world that the United States will respond
forcefully to any interference in past elections and will not
tolerate any such malign activity moving forward. Full stop.
I am disappointed that the ranking member refused our
proposal. I reached across the aisle in an effort to protect
our democracy, and I cannot honestly, for the life of me,
understand why we are unwilling to compromise in this way in
order to do whatever it takes to hold Russia accountable and
foreign powers accountable for helping elect an American
President, Republican or Democrat, and do whatever it takes to
prevent such an intervention from happening in 2020 and beyond.
I also really would love to see this kind of movement come
out of our committee bipartisanly, and I would have really
loved it if we had been able to consider this compromise.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Engel. Thank you, Ms. Houlahan.
Do any other members on either side seek recognition?
OK. Seeing none, the question is on the amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the
amendment is not agreed to.
Do any members seek recognition on the bill?
Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I have got an amendment to H.R.
3501, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
Chairman Engel. All right. The clerk will designate the
amendment.
A little glitch here. Thank you.
OK. Will the clerk please distribute the amendment?
Ms. Stiles. ``Perry Amendment No. 1.
Page 3, line 16, strike `or of any' and insert `of a';
Page 3, line 17, insert `or of any person acting
independently of a foreign government before undertaken';
Page 3, line 20, insert `including by voting, attempting to
vote, assisting others to vote, or attempting to assist others
to vote, in a manner that violates the laws of the United
States after' ''----
Chairman Engel. Without objection, further reading of the
amendment will be dispensed with.
[The amendment of Mr. Perry follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7050.136
Chairman Engel. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. Perry, you are recognized for 5 minutes in support of
the amendment.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you, the
ranking member, and the members of this committee, for your
indulgence.
We are debating legislation this morning to combat foreign
interference in our elections, but the bill as presently
drafted ignores the largest threat to the legitimacy of
results. This amendment will correct that by adding to the
definition ``foreign interference'' the acts of ``voting,
attempting to vote, assisting others to vote, or attempting to
assist others to vote, in violation of the laws of the United
States''. If we are really serious about combating foreign
influence on our elections, we must get serious about the issue
of illegal voting.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania found over 11,000 non-
citizens on their voter rolls. The State of Texas found
approximately 95,000 individuals identified as non-citizens
registered to vote. As more States and localities are providing
illegal foreign nationals with driver's licenses and even
allowing them to vote in local elections, the risk of foreign
voter registration and participation will only increase. States
moving to automatic voter registration----
Mr. Vargas. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Point of order.
We did not receive copies of this amendment. Not enough copies
were made. We did not receive one.
Chairman Engel. Yes, proceedings will suspend. Let's check
this out.
OK. The amendment is being distributed. We want to make
sure everybody has one.
OK. Does everyone have a copy? Anyone who does not have a
copy?
All right. The gentleman can continue with his statement.
Mr. Sherman. Reserve a point of order.
Chairman Engel. Mr. Sherman. OK. Mr. Sherman has reserved a
point of order.
Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Continuing on, States moving to automatic voter
registration have encountered problems of registering foreign
citizens to vote in the United States. Due to claimed typos,
New York passed a bill that would automatically register non-
citizens to vote. California recently admitted to various voter
registration errors that resulted in 24,500 individuals being
registered improperly. Each time an illegal foreign national
votes, an American's legitimate vote becomes irrelevant.
Mr. Chairman, foreign interference, if we really, truly
want to get after it--we can talk about Facebook ads and bots,
and they are, indeed, important, and this bill addresses them--
but certainly we cannot ignore the fact that people from places
like Russia or China, who do not have the best interest of the
United States at heart, could come to America, indeed, are
coming to America, and can be voting in our national elections.
And so, I hope we are serious about it and include this
amendment, so that we can counter that.
If this committee is truly serious about combating foreign
interference--this is foreign interference in our elections--to
protect the integrity of the results and maintain confidence of
the American voter that their vote counts, we simply must adopt
this amendment. I urge passage, and I yield the balance.
Chairman Engel. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Sherman, on a point of order.
Mr. Sherman. The first part of this amendment makes it
applicable to, quote, ``any person acting independently of a
foreign government''. That would include chiefly Americans
acting independently of any foreign government. This is the
Foreign Affairs Committee. What an American does in America,
not acting on their own and not in conjunction with any foreign
government, is about as far away as you can get from the
jurisdiction of this committee as I can imagine. So, for that
reason, I believe that the amendment is not within the
jurisdiction of the committee.
Chairman Engel. Yes, this amendment was not distributed to
us in advance. That was part of the confusion here. But it does
not seem to be germane.
Will the gentleman withdraw his amendment because it is not
germane?
Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I am not interested in
withdrawing. If you are going to choose to make it non-germane,
that could be your choice and it could move on to another
multijurisdictional committee. But I think this issue is
important. We are in the Foreign Affairs Committee. We are
talking about foreign interference of our elections, and this
should be added to this legislation one place or another, and I
want to make that case here. And if other members so desire and
they serve on other committees, they can take the opportunity
to take the amendment and offer it in those committees,
assuming it is not germane here.
Chairman Engel. Let me rule. The chair is prepared to rule.
The chair finds that the amendment is not germane. The
objective of the amendment is unrelated to the objective of
H.R. 3501. And therefore, I will rule that it is not germane.
Anyone seeking recognition to speak on the bill?
Mr. Castro. On the bill. The amendment has been ruled out
of order.
Ms. Spanberger. No.
Do any other members week recognition on the bill?
Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for ruling on the amendment. I support that
ruling.
We heard this before. We heard the President back then say
that, in fact, he may have won the popular vote because
thousands and thousands of undocumented voted. In fact, he said
that, unsubstantiated, that 58,000 out of 95,000 people
registered in Texas that were undocumented voted. We have been
down this road before.
The real issue is how the Russians hacked into many of the
local/State boards of elections. The issue is how they not only
hacked into those boards of elections, they even hacked into
the companies that made the software for these States' boards
of elections. That means that they have a handle, they have
interior control and knowledge of the applications and the
software of our electoral system. At anytime they can come in
and sabotage it, leading to, again, the erosion of confidence
in the electoral process by the American people. So, I support
this bill, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat.
Any other members seek recognition on this bill?
Ms. Spanberger.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am speaking in support of this bill. It is fundamentally
important that we do everything possible to protect our
democracy and to hold those accountable who have endeavored to
interfere in our elections.
Notably, I do share the disappointment of many in here that
this timeline only goes back to 2016. The Mueller report fully
outlines that there were foreign individuals, Russian
individuals, who came to our country in an attempt to learn
about our system and in an attempt to gain information that
would allow them to sow discord within our communities and
potentially impact our elections.
But that will not stop me from supporting this. Because
when it comes down to it, the bottom line is we all know that
the Russians interfered with our elections; the Russians hacked
a major political party; the Russians stole information and
sought to weaponize it; the Russians had troll farms meant to
sow divisions within our community.
And my primary goal here on this committee is to make sure
that we are protecting American interests, and in this case it
comes to using our capabilities here on the Foreign Affairs
Committee to ensure that we do everything possible to protect
our elections from foreign interference. And that is why I urge
my colleagues, including those who share disappointment over
the timeline, to vote for this bill. Notably, it does not stop
the intelligence community from sharing information about who
might have come here in 2013, in 2014, in 2015, but it is a
step forward. It is an affirmative action to protect our
elections moving forward and to make sure that those who came
to sow dissent, who came to interfere, are held accountable.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Engel. Thank you. The gentlewoman yields back.
Do any other members seek recognition on this bill?
Mr. Castro.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman.
I just wanted to offer a point of clarification because I
do not want to let this misinformation stand. Mr. Perry,
Representative made a comment about Texas and 95,000 non-
citizens that were registered to vote. Texas actually made a
terrible error, the Secretary of State and the Governor, and
had to admit in court that they were wrong. There were never
those 95,000 people.
In fact, the title of one of the articles was, ``Texas
Settles Lawsuit Over Bungled Search for Illegal Votes''. And
from this article, it says, ``The settlement requires Texas to
change how it investigates voter citizenship and pay $450,000
in fees to civil rights groups that brought the lawsuit.''
Quote, `` `This settlement brings an end to a deplorable Texas
farce in which State leaders shamelessly lied about alleged
widespread fraud by Latino and other immigrants, grabbing
headlines and national attention,' said Thomas A. Saenz.''
Unquote.
``The State originally claimed that 58,000 people on the
list had voted in at least one election since 1996. But,
significantly, Texas officials failed to exclude voters who
legally cast ballots only after becoming naturalized
citizens.'' So, these people became citizens. They were basing
it off of a search of driver's license applications and
holders. So, there were never 95,000 people. Texas messed up.
Thanks.
Chairman Engel. OK. Thank you.
Mr. McCaul.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to give some context to this whole debate
because I have been in the middle of it, really, since being a
young prosecutor in the Justice Department. I was also in the
October 2016 ``Gang of Eight'' briefing with the DNI and the
Secretary of Homeland Security, who told me at that time in a
classified setting that the Russians were, indeed, interfering
in our elections. At that time, I asked the administration--at
that time, the Obama Administration--to condemn this action and
call it out for what it was and prosecute. And I fully
supported the Mueller probe and the prosecutions as well.
When I was a young prosecutor in the late 1990's, I
prosecuted the campaign finance violations, which ultimately
led us to the Director of Chinese Intelligence, working with
China aerospace, to put money into a Hong Kong bank account to
influence the then-Clinton campaign.
The idea of foreign influence in our elections, as Mr.
Perry said, is really nothing new. And we should object to it
at any point in our history. I did as a young prosecutor and
got justice, and I did when I was briefed in a classified
setting on this issue.
I would submit to you this, Mr. Chairman: I would prefer to
take out any dates and let this committee look at all foreign
national, foreign government interference in our elections,
whether it be Russia, whether it be China, whether it be Iran.
So, I would submit that to you, Mr. Chairman. I would be
willing to work with you on this bill to make this bill better
and, quite frankly, more expansive, and not just looking at one
election and one party and one President, but, rather, anytime
a foreign government has interfered in our election. So, I
would hope, Mr. Chairman, you would take me up on this offer.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairman Engel. OK. Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
it.
I am going to be voting no, but I just want to explain why
I am voting no. I think that election interference is,
obviously, an issue, but I have got an issue with the
retroactive nature of this bill, looking back to 2016. I think
that our adversaries in the world, and those who are
challenging our hegemonic status, are not looking back. They
are looking ahead.
We have China who is building a six-carrier fleet to move
into a blue water navy. We should be very concerned about that.
China is also making moves in the South China Sea, again,
challenging our hegemonic power in the Pacific. They are
crushing opposition leaders in Hong Kong. They have re-
education camps with the Uyghurs. And yet, we are doing
nothing. We are looking back to 2016.
Moving to the Middle East, you have a war in Yemen. You
have Syria. You have Iran who shot one of our drones out of the
sky and is seizing tankers. That is a problem.
And then, in our own hemisphere you have Maduro and you
have a crisis with refugees flooding into Colombia, which
threatens one of our allies. And yet, we are looking back to
2016.
So, to the extent this bill is retroactive, I am against
it, and that is why I am a no vote.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Engel. I thank the gentleman.
Who am I hearing? Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will not
be lulled into the false argument that what happened in 2016,
frankly, has been going on since forever and it is no
different. It is different. It is qualitatively different. It
is unprecedented. It was systematic. That is why Robert Mueller
indicted 26 Russian operatives. Never before--maybe because of
the rise of social media--have we had a foreign adversary
systematically attempt to interfere and direct the American
election.
We must speak out about that. We cannot pretend it is all
the same; France favoring Jefferson in the 1800 election is no
different than Russian interferences and bots and fake news and
fake purchases of Facebook with deliberately false and
misleading information to the American people in the millions
is the same. It is not.
And after three Congresses, the time has come for us to
speak out as Americans about what Vladimir Putin's Russia has
tried to do, so it does not happen again. But you cannot
address the future without quite clearly addressing the past.
So, do not be lulled into the false argument that it is all the
same. It most certainly is not. And we must speak out. We must
be heard. We need to be the voice of the American people.
Mr. Chairman, if there are no other speakers, I urge us to
come to a vote.
Chairman Engel. Do any other members seek recognition on
this bill?
If not--Mr. Malinowski.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just very briefly, because I heard the statement of my
friend from Pennsylvania about the retroactivity of the bill.
And just as a point of clarification, it does back to 2016. We
offered that it would go back to 2012. I would be happy going
back. As Ms. Houlahan said, she would be happy to go back to
1776.
But it also looks forward. And just to be very, very clear,
the reports that are required in this legislation, the next
report, obviously, would go back to 2016, but it requires a
report after every single Federal election forever. So, I
completely share my friend's concern that this could happen
from Iran, from China, from many other actors in the future,
and the bill fully addresses that. This sets up a system that
allows us in perpetuity to hold foreign actors accountable for
the types of interference that I think we both are concerned
about.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Engel. OK. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am proud to support H.R. 3501, our Secure Our Democracy
Act, which imposes sanctions on any foreign individual or
entity who interferes in U.S. elections. Though we have known
since 2006 that the Russian Government was engaged in efforts
to interfere in that and in subsequent elections, with the
release of the Mueller Report earlier this year, the American
people learned the extent to which representatives of the
Russian Government attempted to influence and undermine our
democracy.
The Mueller Report found that, and I quote, the Russian
Government interfered in the 2016 Presidential election in
sweeping and systematic fashion, end quote. These efforts
ranged from the simplistic to the sophisticated but they were
intended to sew chaos in our democratic process.
We also know that Russia and other entities are actively
engaging in ongoing election interference to this day. We must
send a strong message that these types of behaviors will not be
tolerated and will be met with the full force of our law.
I am very grateful to my colleagues, Chairman Engel and
Congressman Connolly for their tireless efforts to pass this
legislation and I urge my colleagues to understand the world is
watching. The world is watching, our adversaries are watching
whether or not the Congress of the United States is united in
our defense of our democracy and our message that no one, no
foreign adversary has any right to interfere in an American
election, that elections will be decided by the American people
and no one else.
This committee vote is an important vote. It is a moment to
stand up and to tell the world, Republican, Democrat,
Independent, it does not matter, as Americans, we will not
tolerate interference in an American Presidential election by a
foreign adversary. I urge everyone on this committee to support
this excellent piece of legislation.
And I yield back.
Chairman Engel. The gentleman yields.
Any other requests for recognition? If not, the question is
to report H.R. 3501 to the House with the recommendation that
the bill do pass.
All those in favor, say aye.
All opposed no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The ayes have it. The measure is ordered favorably
reported.
We now move on, pursuant to notice for the purposes of a
markup, I now call up the Bass Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute to H.Res. 326, Expressing the sense of the House
regarding United States efforts to resolve the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict through a negotiated two-State solution.
[The Amendment offered by Ms. Bass follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Engel. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Stiles. Bass Amendment Number 1 in the nature of a
substitute. Strike the preamble and insert the following:
Whereas the special relationship between the United States
and Israel is rooted in shared national security interests and
shared values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law--
--
Chairman Engel. Without objection, the first reading of the
amendment is dispensed with. Without objection, the amendment
in the nature of a substitute will be considered as base text
and shall be considered as read and open to amendment at any
point.
And at this time, I recognize myself to speak on the
amendment.
I am glad we are considering measures today to strengthen
Israel's security and help advance the United States-Israel
relationship. Israel remains our most important ally in the
Middle East and I will work every day to make sure that Israel
will continue to thrive as a Jewish and democratic State.
In fact, I just returned from a visit to Israel last month
and, as always happens, when I travel to the region, and the
ranking member and I have traveled together, my experience with
the Palestinian and Israeli people only strengthen my resolve
that we must find the path forward to peace to a two-State
solution.
And I agree with the longstanding bipartisan consensus with
Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama that a two-State solution
is the best way to solve the dispute because, in my decades of
working on this issue, I have yet to see any other plan, other
than the two-State solution, that would ensure that Israel
remained both majority Jewish and democratic and addresses and
advances the rights and the dignity of the Palestinian people.
Since the 1990's, that has been the United States policy and
that of many of our allies and partners around the world, that
we must approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with this
goal that 1 day there will be a Jewish and democratic State of
Israel living within secure and recognized borders, alongside a
viable, peaceful Palestinian State that advances the self-
determination of the Palestinian people. Exactly how we would
get there remains an open question but the end goal was clear
with broad bipartisan consensus.
The United States has a vital role to play in the peace
process and we must stand firm in our commitment to the idea
that both Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live with
security and dignity. So I am pleased that we are considering
Mr. Lowenthal's measure, H.R. 326, that underscores the United
States commitment to the two-State solution.
I consider myself to be one of the strongest supporters of
Israel in Congress and I truly believe that this resolution
will go a long way in ensuring that. This resolution is made to
send a message that unilateral moves, whether they be
annexation or unilateral steps by Palestinians at the United
Nations, to gain Statehood status outside the context of a
negotiated two-State solution will put the cause of peace
further out of reach.
While I am disappointed we could not reach consensus on
this resolution, I know that all members of this committee on
both sides of the aisle want to see peace in the Middle East
and that is why I remain committed to a two-State solution. But
regardless, I look forward to working with Ranking Member
McCaul, with whom I traveled to Israel, and all of the members
on this committee on ways to help bring about a peaceful
solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure
to reaffirm our commitment to the two-State solution.
Do any other members seek recognition to speak?
Mr. Zeldin.
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And first off, I want to say thank you to Mr. Lowenthal and
to Ms. Bass for their work on this issue. While I am going to
outline some of my concerns with the bill, it would be lost if
I did not start off with stating that a lot of this resolution
I not just agree with but strongly agree with and both Ms. Bass
and Mr. Lowenthal should be commended for their initiative in
bringing this forward.
So three things I just wanted to discuss, as far as my
concerns with this resolution. First, H.Res. 246, which is
going to be considered today, and I am looking forward to that
coming up a little bit later, I thank all of my colleagues from
Chairman Engel, to his great team, to many others on the other
side of the aisle here for their work on that bill. Congressman
Schneider, Chairman Nadler, and others took a leadership with
H.Res. 246, which sends a strong, powerful statement that
covers a lot of what this resolution says and more.
This resolution is basically a watered down--respectfully,
it is a watered down version of the resolution that we will be
considering in a bit. There is nothing that this resolution
does that H.Res. 246 does not do. It just does not have some of
the strongest, most powerful statements that are in H.Res. 246
that have garnished over 300 bipartisan cosponsors. That is a
resolution that, for several months, many members on both sides
of the aisle have been working very closely with to try to get
the language right. Chairman Engel and his team have been great
to work with on H.Res. 246, working with the lead Republican,
other members of this committee.
But that is the first concern is that this resolution does
not include anything that the other resolution does not
include. And it is missing a lot of the most powerful
statements that were very important priorities for many
members, I believe, on both sides of the aisle.
The second component is with regards to a line that
references principles set forth by President Barack Obama and
Secretary of State John Kerry in December 2016. That is
specifically Stated in the resolution.
And I disagreed with certain aspects of President Obama's
foreign policy as it related to Israel, specifically, but what
was of huge concern to me was what happened after the November
2016 election, whether it was U.N. Security Council Resolution
2334 that passed without a United States veto that, for the
first time at that Security Council, was saying there was a
violation of international law and calling it occupied
territory, language that is included in the original text that
Mr. Lowenthal put out, and we worked behind the scenes to get
U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334.
And part of the principles that are specifically referenced
in this resolution became very controversial and many people in
and out of Congress had a huge problem with the way it was
presented, not just at the United Nations but, if you remember,
Secretary Kerry gave a speech. It was about 90 minutes or so
long and he was lecturing Israel on everything in his mind that
he believed that they were doing wrong, without having the
accountability that was necessary with regards to the
Palestinians. And that is where many of us observed, you can be
a neutral arbiter without sacrificing being an honest broker.
One other paragraph talks about, quote, opposed settlement
expansion moves toward unilateral annexation of territories.
This is the third point I wanted to put out. If we are going to
get into listing the preconditions that should be necessary,
the most important preconditions that aren't included but
should be: one is recognizing Israel's right to exist as a
Jewish State; two, ensuring a demilitarized Palestinian State;
and three, recognizing Jerusalem as the rightful capital of
Israel. Those are three preconditions as part of historical
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians that, if we
were going to get into listing preconditions in this
resolution, I would encourage the authors to add the additional
preconditions, especially the most important ones.
So those are the three most important reasons why I am
concerned with this bill and the underlying amendment, mostly
because this resolution takes out a lot of what is in 246 that
we will be considering later that we support most strongly.
And I yield back.
Chairman Engel. The gentlemen yields back. Thank you, Mr.
Zeldin.
Mr. Sherman, you are cognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sherman. This resolution is imperfect, as all are. It
repeats things that we have already said. Every resolution on
the Middle East repeats something we have already said.
It is not comprehensive. We do not necessarily have enough
paper to be comprehensive in stating all of the relevant
factors in the Middle East.
I think it is a good resolution. I look forward to working
with the gentleman from New York on the resolution he refers to
and we can--this will not be the last statement of this
committee on the Middle East.
I do not think that we have to criticize the resolution
because it mentions President Obama and then there are things
that President Obama did that we disagree with. There are
things that Jefferson, Jackson, and Roosevelt did that I
disagree with. The fact is, it was regrettable that we did not
veto that resolution in the U.N. but that, I think, is to the
side of this resolution.
This resolution is important because it talks about how
critical it is to have a two-State solution. I want to caution
some--we in America are in a multi-ethnic society. Our goal is
for everyone to get along and everyone to have an equal right.
And that is a noble goal. And so we might think that those who
are proposing a one-State solution for the Holy Land have a
similar goal. If their goal is to have French-speaking and
Dutch-speaking Belgians walking hand-in-hand down the streets
of Brussels, each in their own community or linguistic
community, each recognizing with the joy the citizenship of the
other in peace, harmony, and equality, that is not what the
advocates of the one-State solution are supporting.
On the Palestinian side, Hamas supports a one-State
solution, so long as, first, the Holy Land is ethnically
cleansed of all Jews and then they have an internal argument
about whether to exclude those Jews who can document that their
families lived there in roughly the year 1600. The Ottoman
Empire was not noted for its issuing of identity documents
designed to survive hundreds of years.
And there are those in Israel who believe that Israel
should annex Ramallah but none of them believe--who are
advocating that believe that the residents of Ramallah should
have a vote in electing the Israeli Knesset.
A two-State solution is the solution. And now when a two-
State solution is under the--seems to have bleak prospects is
precisely why we need to pass this resolution. And I can
recognize why those in Israel are not optimistic about a two-
State solution. Again, again, and again, the Palestinian side
has rejected negotiations to create a two-State solution.
At Camp David, offers were made that are far beyond what
could be made today by any Israeli Government, brokered by the
United States and President Bill Clinton and rejected.
But ultimately, we need a two-State solution.
Unfortunately, not only does Hamas reject the two-State
solution, but the Palestinian Authority continues to demand
that if there are two States, that the Jewish State must accept
any Arabic-speaking person who claims, and, again, the Ottomans
had no records, that they or any of their ancestors ever lived
in Israel has the right to move there. So, from the
Palestinians Authority side, we have advocacy for a two-State
solution, as long as they are both Arab States.
This resolution indicates that we need two States for two
people, democratic, equal rights for the citizens of those
States. It is a necessary resolution and I have never voted for
a perfect resolution. I will not be voting for a perfect
resolution today but we need to pass this resolution.
Mr. Zeldin. Will the gentleman briefly yield? Will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. Sherman. I will see if--I will yield you 10 seconds.
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you. I just wanted to point out, and I
appreciate you bringing up the point that I mentioned about
President Barack Obama and Secretary Kerry. It was only the
words in December 2016. So my issue was that we are referencing
their statement of principles and positions at the election but
I just wanted to clarify.
Mr. Sherman. It was in the same month that something else
happened. I do not regard that as a criticism on the
resolution.
Mr. Zeldin. Well--I yield back my time.
Chairman Engel. Any other members wish----
Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to speak in opposition to House Resolution 326 for a
myriad of reasons. First and foremost, the United States should
not be prescribing or determining an outcome of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. Most of us on this committee strongly
advocate for a peaceful negotiated solution to the conflict and
the United States does have a role to play in helping our ally,
Israel, and ensure both sides come to the table in good faith.
However, it is not the role of the United States to be
determining the outcome. Whether the resolution to the conflict
involves one State, two States, three States, or eight States,
that is the decision of the Government of Israel and the
representatives of the Palestinian people.
Second, this resolution is a clear one-sided rebuke of the
work of the Trump administration that has garnered wholly
partisan support. As of this morning, there are 147 Democratic
cosponsors on this legislation and not a single Republican.
This is despite the concept of a two-State solution
historically garnering bipartisan support.
This resolution calls for the United States to offer a
peace plan, consistent with previous United States proposals,
taking a clear shot at the Trump administration and his team
who have made resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a core
pillar of the administration's Middle East policy. This is not
the normal operation of this committee. And bringing forth this
resolution on the same day our committee is finally addressing
a serious and direct threat to the State of Israel, the BDS
Movement, clearly undercuts the work of this committee.
And I just want to address the comments from my good friend
and the good gentleman from Texas. He is correct that there was
a lawsuit regarding the purge of voters that were naturalized
later. However, or how were the people registered to vote
before they were naturalized is the question. Were people
naturalized? Certainly people were naturalized later but the
question is: Why were they on the voting rolls prior to being
naturalized? Texas, in the settlement, has not admitted fault
and they are still exploring the rolls.
So the point is about the lawsuit, sure, you are right,
there was a lawsuit. But the question is: How were people on
the voting rolls prior to being naturalized?
And with that, I yield the balance.
Chairman Engel. OK, the gentleman yields back.
Ms. Bass is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for bringing these bills to
the committee today.
I would specifically like to speak in favor of H.Res. 326,
Expressing the sense of the House regarding U.S. efforts to
resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a negotiated
two-State solution that was introduced by Congressman Lowenthal
and I, in which I was an original cosponsor, along with
Representative Connolly.
This bill was introduced because Members of Congress are
concerned that the current administration's policies in Israel
may not adhere to the longstanding bipartisan U.S. policy
promoting a negotiated two-State solution that supports the
self-determination of both Israelis and Palestinians.
Congress has also grown increasingly concerned by Prime
Minister Netanyahu's decision to build a coalition with the
extreme far right of Israeli politics for support. These moves
have been criticized across the Israeli political spectrum. For
decades, both Republican and Democratic administrations have
sought to play a proactive role in advancing a two-State
solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would result
in a secure, democratic Jewish State living side-by-side with a
peaceful and democratic Palestinian State.
Dozens of Israeli security officials recognize that the
conflict must be resolved in a two-State solution. This
includes former Prime Minister and Chief of Staff to the
Israeli Defense Forces Barak, who made clear that a two-State
solution is the only viable long-term solution. It is a
compelling imperative for us in order to secure our identity
and our future as a Jewish and democratic State, closed quote.
This resolution reflects these sentiments.
The resolution calls for U.S. policy to support preserving
conditions conducive to a negotiated two-State solution and the
resolution resolves that it is the sense of the House that any
U.S. proposal should expressly endorse a two-State solution as
its objective. It also notes that unilateral annexation of
portions of the West Bank would jeopardize prospects for a two-
State solution and could undermine Israel's security and that a
two-State solution is the best hope to preserve Israel's Jewish
and democratic nature, while fulfilling Palestinians' right to
self-determination. The U.S. must remain steadfast in its
support for a two-State solution, which is the best hope to
preserve Israel's Jewish and democratic nation--nature.
I am proud to join my fellow Members of Congress in
reiterating our support for what has been longstanding
bipartisan U.S. policy and urge the Trump administration to do
the same.
I would also like to highlight the bipartisan resolution
H.Res. 138, introduced by Congress Member Hastings, expressing
support for addressing the Arab-Israeli conflict in a
concurrent track with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and
commending Arab and Muslim majority States that have improved
bilateral relations with Israel. This resolution, Hastings'
resolution, expresses a sense of the House in support of
efforts to address the Arab-Israeli conflict in a concurrent
track with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and commends
Arab and Muslim majority States that have improved bilateral
relations with Israel. It expresses support for progress toward
a lasting two-State solution and encourages further regional
progress toward such an approach.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairman Engel. The gentlewoman yields back.
Mr. Mast.
Mr. Mast. Thank you for the recognition, Mr. Chairman.
I want to bring up a couple points in opposition to this
piece of legislation and to read directly from the text. In the
whereas clauses, it States: offers Israel long-term security
and full normalization with its neighbors. I think it is a joke
if anybody takes that as some kind of whereas fact that a two-
State solution offers long-term security to the Nation of
Israel.
Let me go on. That it recognize the Palestinian right to
self-determination and enhance, again, Israel's long-term
security and normalization with its neighbors.
Now, to put this into perspective, in a few moments we are
going to speak about a bill, 1850, Palestinian International
Terrorism Support Prevention Act of 2019, of which we
specifically address anybody that has any ties to Hamas. And
why do we identify those that have ties to Hamas? And I was
going to speak about this when we get to that bill but to go
and speak about the history of Hamas, let's just start: 2003,
suicide bomber disguised as ultra-Orthodox Jew detonates
himself, 16 killed; August 2003, suicide bomber detonates
himself on bus, killing 20 Israelis; January 2004, Hamas female
suicide bomber kills four Israelis; March 2004, double attack
on Israeli Port of Ashdod kills ten Israelis; August 2004--and
I could go on year, after year, after year reading about these
links between Hamas terrorism.
And let's go to 2006 and I will acknowledge there is a
separation between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas between,
obviously, the West Bank and Gaza. There, of course, is
separation there. But let's talk about what happened in 2006.
Hamas wins a landslide victory in the Palestinian legislative
elections, gains the majority within their parliamentary body.
Their version of Congress. Hamas gains the majority.
We are about to vote on a piece of legislation condemning
and calling for action against anybody that ties themself to
this group and we want to speak about making a State out of
that exact same group of individuals.
This should make sense to nobody, in my opinion.
And with that, I believe, Mr. Zeldin, were you still
seeking time to be yielded to? OK.
And with that, I yield the balance of my time back to the
Chair.
Chairman Engel. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Castro, did you want time? No.
OK, Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wish to
speak in support of H.Res. 326.
Twenty-nine years ago in 1990, I went on an interfaith
delegation to Israel and Palestine with Jewish, and Christian,
and Muslim community leaders from the Detroit area. And we
traveled all around Israel and we went to Gaza, which then was
under Israeli control, and we went to the West Bank and met
with Palestinian leaders of all kinds as well.
And it was so clear, at that time, that it was an urgent,
urgent matter to resolve the conflict through a two-State
solution as the only way to maintain a Jewish and democratic
Israel and the only way to vindicate the legitimate aspirations
of the Palestinian people. And now we have gone 29 more years
without accomplishing that.
The most important thing about this resolution is that it
tries to maintain the long and completely bipartisan American
foreign policy of resolving this conflict in a way that
maintains security and democracy in Israel and provides, at
long last, the rights for the Palestinian people to have their
own homeland.
The most important danger for Israel that can come in this
country is making support for it partisan. So that is why this
resolution is so important and why I urge my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle to continue our many decades of working
together to seek a just two-State solution to the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I congratulate Mr. Lowenthal and
Ms. Bass for their great work on this and I yield back.
Chairman Engel. I thank the gentleman.
Anybody on the Republican side who wishes to speak?
OK, hearing none, Ms. Omar.
Do any other members wish to speak? No.
OK, hearing no further requests for recognition, the
question is to report H.Res. 326, as amended, to the House with
the recommendation that the resolution be passed.
All those in favor, say aye.
All opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
The ayes have it. The measure is ordered favorably
reported.
Pursuant to notices for purposes of a markup, I now call up
the en bloc package consisting of the Amendment in the Nature
of a Substitute to H.Res. 246 with the Zeldin Amendment; H.R.
1850; the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1837;
H.Res. 138 with the Wilson Amendment; H.Con.Res. 32; H.Res.
442, with the Malinowski Amendment in the Nature of a
Substitute; H.R. 2097; and H.Res. 127.
[The Bills, Resolutions, and Amendments en bloc follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Engel. I will now recognize myself to speak on the
en bloc measures. I am pleased to support all of these measures
before us today and I thank our members on both sides of the
aisle for their hard work. We have several good bipartisan
measures before us today that help advance the U.S.-Israel
relationship, strengthen Israel's security, and move toward a
two-State solution.
First, the United States-Israel Cooperation Enhancement and
Regional Security Act, H.R. 1837. This legislation cultivates
the relationship between the United States and Israel, touching
on how our countries learned from one another on a wide range
of issues in helping veterans confront issues with PTSD to
advancing space cooperation and improving water and
desalination issues. This legislation also advances critical
priorities for both Israelis and the Palestinians. It helps
restore U.S. assistance to Palestinians and gives American
victims of terrorism a clearer pathway to justice in American
courts.
I welcome this opening for economic and security assistance
for the Palestinians to move ahead. As some of us learned in
recent travel to Israel, there are major security
considerations for both Israelis and Palestinians now that the
security assistance has been cutoff due to interpretations of
the underlying law. It is also important that we resume
programs that promote tolerance and peace-building.
I thank Congressman Deutch, Ranking Member McCaul, and
Congressman Wilson for their work on this measure. I hope it
will help provide some justice to families of the victims of
Palestinian terrorist attacks.
And as we meet today, violence continues to terrorize the
Israeli people. Only a couple of months ago, Israelis endured
hundreds of rocket attacks from Gaza, with attacks meant to
threaten civilians. I am glad we are considering the
Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act,
which puts new sanctions on those who sponsor Hamas and Islamic
Jihad.
I thank Mr. Mast and Mr. Gottheimer for their leadership in
crafting this important measure.
We will also consider H.Res. 246, a resolution that points
out that the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement,
or BDS, hinders progress on reaching a two-State solution to
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Global BDS Movement
demonizes only one side of this conflict and it puts the onus
entirely on Israel to solve this protracted issue when, in
reality, the Palestinians need to do their part to move toward
a solution.
Almost 80 percent of the House has cosponsored this
resolution and I am glad we are able to move it forward today.
I thank its bipartisan sponsors, Representatives Schneider,
Nadler, Zeldin, and Wagner for their work on this important
issue.
Next I want to discuss an issue that is particularly close
to my heart, H.Con.Res. 32, which deals with the murder of the
Bytyqi brothers in the Balkans. Ylli, Agron, and Mehmet Bytyqi
were three brothers from New York State who were killed
execution-style by Serbian officials after they mistakenly
crossed the unmarked Serbian-Kosovo border. Their bodies were
discovered with their hands bound behind their backs in a mass
grave in 2001.
Serbian President Vucic promised me more than 2 years ago
that this Government would bring the murders to justice. It is
simply unacceptable that no Serbian individuals have been
brought to justice for these murders. Apparently, there is not
even a serious criminal investigation underway. This is
outrageous.
As chairman, I will continue to speak on this and support
legislation that addresses this injustice. Today's resolution
makes it clear that Serbia must fully investigate the Bytyqi
brothers case and bring justice to the families of these
murdered New Yorkers. U.S.-Serbia relations depend on Serbia's
adherence to the rule of law, and human rights, and commitment
to prosecute horrendous criminal cases such as this.
A few weeks ago, when I was in Serbia, I spoke directly
with the Serbian President Vucic to tell him that the Bytyqi
case must be resolved. I said this to him many times. I have
had promises that it would be resolved but, so far, no results.
Finally, I want to mention my resolution on the importance
of a trilateral cooperation between the United States, Japan,
and the Republic of Korea. It is critical that our three
nations are able to work together. We have too many urgent
national security concerns not to do so. So I am very troubled
by the growing tensions between Japan and South Korea and I
urge both countries to find a way forward which restores their
ability to cooperate with each other and with us. This is a
good resolution and I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting it.
Again, I support all the measures in our en bloc package
and I urge all members will join me in doing so.
I will now recognize Mr. Wilson for any remarks he may
have.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Engel, and Republican
Leader Mike McCaul for calling today's markup.
I am a strong supporter of many of the measures before us
today and I thank the committee staff, both majority and
minority, for their hard work in advance of today's markup.
I would like to begin by thanking our colleague from
Illinois, Mr. Brad Schneider, and Congressman Lee Zeldin of New
York for their work on House Resolution 246 opposing efforts to
delegitimize the State of Israel and the Global Boycott,
Divestment and Sanctions Movement targeting Israel. This
committee has spent considerable time and effort working to
safeguard Israel from the many security threats it faces. But
Israel faces another threat--the threat of delegitimization.
This threat is more pernicious. It masquerades as a peaceful
activism but its ultimate goal is to delegitimize the Jewish
State and eventually to see its complete destruction.
Extremists are very clear, as they shout death to Israel, death
to America.
Today, this committee will send a clear message that we
oppose BDS and all other efforts to unfairly single out Israel.
It is not only anti-Semitic, it undermines the possibility for
potential negotiated solution. I urge our colleagues to support
this important resolution.
I would also like to commend our colleague, Mr. Brian Mast
of Florida, for his extensive work on H.R. 1850, the
Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act of
2019. This important legislation would sanction any individual
entity and government that supports Hamas or Palestinian
Islamic Jihad. Today, Mr. Mast will be putting terrorist
supporters around the world on notice: If you harbor, aid, or
abet these murderous Palestinian terrorist groups, you will
face stiff consequences.
I should also note that this past Friday a senior Hamas
official urged Palestinians abroad to kill Jews everywhere.
Quote: We must attack every Jew on the globe by way of
slaughter and killing. End of quote. These are the exact words.
Enough is enough. Anyone supporting this group's murderous
agenda is just as guilty as those terrorists. These hate-filled
words come as a reminder to us today on how important this bill
is.
And I thank Mr. Mast, again, for his presence and
leadership on this issue.
I am also grateful for my colleague, Mr. Ted Deutch, the
Chairman of the Middle East, North Africa, and International
Terrorism Subcommittee for his work on H.R. 1837, the United
States-Israel Cooperation Enhancement and Regional Security
Act.
This critical bill authorizes $3.3 billion annually in
funds to be authorized for foreign military financing for
Israel for fiscal years 2019 to 2023. It expands cooperation
between our two countries in every field imaginable--science,
technology, energy, water, and more. It also correctly points
out that the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act, the ATCA, to
make it easier for U.S. victims of Palestinian terrorism to sue
the Palestinian Authority.
Thank you, Chairman Deutch, for your tireless efforts to
support our cherished friendship with the State of Israel.
Last, I would like to thank our colleague and chairman of
the Helsinki Commission, Mr. Hastings, for his thoughtfulness
of House Resolution 326 regarding the two-State solution for
the Israel-Palestinian conflict. My amendment to this
resolution, in cooperation and notice with Chairman Hastings,
would simply clarify that peace between Israel and other Arab
States should not have to wait until the resolution of the
Israel-Palestinian conflict.
In recent years, we have seen an inspiring increase of
relations between Israel and various Arab countries. Just last
month, the Foreign Minister of Bahrain commented, quote, Israel
is part of this heritage of this whole region, historically, so
the Jewish people have a place among us. End of quote. Comments
like this are unprecedented and should be encouraged. Peace
between Israel and Arab States should not have to wait for the
resolution of an intractable conflict. I am grateful for the
Arab States of the region to follow the model of Bahrain and
others for the sake of the future of the Middle East, which
clearly would be mutually beneficial for all parties.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Engel. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Cicilline for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support
of the en bloc package before the committee. I am proud to be
an original cosponsor of Mr. Deutch's bill, H.R. 1837, the
U.S.-Israel Cooperation Enhancement and Regional Security Act,
which reaffirms our longstanding commitment to ensuring
Israel's security and will enhance our security and economic
partnerships on a number of important fronts. It is the only
democracy in the strategically important region. Both of our
countries will benefit from deeper relationships in cyber,
energy, education, development, and other areas.
I am pleased that this bill also includes a provision I
authored in H.R. 2488, the U.S.-Israel Cybersecurity Center of
Excellence Act. This provision will allow us to take the first
step toward establishing a joint U.S.-Israel Cybersecurity
Center of Excellence in order to capitalize on the innovations
in the cyber sphere occurring in both the United States and
Israel by requiring the State Department to report on the
impact of creating such a center. Thank you to Chairman Deutch
for your leadership on this issue.
Finally, I want to say a few words about the bills related
to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the BDS Movement. I am
grateful to Mr. Lowenthal for his introduction of H.R. 326,
which reaffirms the longstanding bipartisan commitment to
achieving a two-State solution. At this moment, we feel further
away than ever of achieving a peaceful solution where a
democratic Israel can coexist with an independent democratic
Palestinian State. That is why I think it is so important that
we show the world that we haven't backed down from our
commitment to a two-State solution and that we believe the
United States must continue to play a constructive role toward
this goal.
Finally, I support the resolution condemning the anti-
Semitic Global BDS Movement. To be clear, it is every
American's right to protest and boycott whomever they like.
Nothing about this bill does or should change that, or should
be interpreted as impeding on any American's first amendment
rights. America has a long and rich history of using first
amendment rights to express strongly held beliefs. What this
bill does do is call out the Global BDS Movement for its anti-
Semitic rhetoric and actions, and makes it clear that a
movement that denies the existence of an independent Jewish
State violates American values.
I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc package and
thank you, again, Mr. Chairman for holding this markup and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Engel. Does anyone else seek recognition on the
Republican side? Is that Mr. Yoho? OK, Mr. Yoho.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
Ranking Member McCaul and Chairman Engel for holding this
markup. This morning we will be voting on many substantive
measures, including some that I have co-sponsored, of which Mr.
Deutch's bill, H.R. 1837, the United States-Israel Cooperation
Enhancement and Regional Security Act; Chairman Engle's
resolution, H.Res. 127 Expressing the sense of the House on the
importance and vitality of the U.S. alliance with Japan and the
Republic of Korea, I think it is so important that we do that
at this point in time, and our trilateral cooperation in the
pursuit of shared interests; Mr. Schneider's resolution H.Res.
246, Opposing efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel and
the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction Movements
targeting Israel; Mr. Brian Mast's bill, H.R. 1850, the
Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act of
2019.
Measures in this markup will have immense impact on the
United States policy for generations to come, hopefully, and
protect our national security.
I would like to touch one bill, specifically, H.R. 1850,
which requires the President to report to Congress on each
foreign person or country who knowingly provides financial or
material support for Hamas or the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and
requires the administration to impose sanctions on the
identified individuals and countries.
During a time when we are witnessing an increased
proliferation of extreme radical terrorist organizations, it is
essential that we address these bad actors and reprimand those
in the international community who are helping facilitate those
atrocities. Terrorist organizations are targeting civilian
populations all over the world, groups like Hamas, Hezbollah,
al-Qaida, Al Shabaab, JEM, ISIS all seek to instill fear in
others through violence and intimidations.
In fact, we just had a hearing where in Somalia there was a
7,000 increase--7,000 percent increase in terrorist activities
by ISIS. In an increasingly divided world, we must come
together to fight these malicious groups, who have increased in
number since 9/11. Just last week, 27 people were killed in a
terrorist attack on a hotel in Somalia. Al Shabaab, a known
terrorist organization with links to al-Qaida claimed
responsibility for the attack. To bring an end to this
divisiveness and evil, the United States and our allies must
present a strong front against these known bad actors and
remove them. This will require strength and immediate action
and we can start right here on this committee.
I yield back.
Chairman Engel. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Omar.
Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chairman.
What are we doing to achieve peace? I believe that simple
question should guide every vote we take in this committee. It
was the question that guided Prime Minister Rabin in 1993. It
was the question that guided President Carter, President Sadat,
and Prime Minister Begin in 1978. It should continue to guide
our approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I believe the
best way to guarantee self-determination for both the Israeli
and Palestinian people is to go through a two-State solution
based upon internationally recognized borders. This is why I
proudly supported Mr. Lowenthal's resolution to affirm what has
been the official bipartisan U.S. policy across two decades and
has been supported by each of the most recent Israel and
Palestinian leaders, as well as the consensus of the Israel
security establishment. That solution is a two-State solution.
But if we really believe in a two-State solution, we must
acknowledge the obvious, which is that one group of people
currently has statehood, while the other lives under indefinite
military occupation of their land. This is not my definition of
it. This is the definition of the conservative Israeli leader,
Ariel Sharon, who in 2003 said, and I quote, to hold 3.5
million Palestinians under occupation, in my opinion, is a very
bad thing for us and for them. This is occupation, he said. You
might not like this word but it is really an occupation. I end
quote.
I believe that truly achieving peace means ending this
occupation and ending the occupation means being honest when
Israel takes steps to undermine the cause of peace. So when
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says, and I quote, he
is more committed to settlements than any in Israel's history.
We should honestly say that it is an impediment to peace. There
are consequences to these actions.
When Netanyahu vows to make the occupation permanent by
annexing Palestinian land in the West Bank at the same time we
are providing him with billions of dollars in military aid, we
should say there are consequences to these actions. And in
previous times, Bush and Reagan have said that.
But as in all diplomacy, truly pursuing peace is not just
about punishing bad behavior. We must support efforts to end
the occupation and achieve a two-State solution. I believe
firmly that the path to peace does not lie in a violent means.
As Martin Luther King, Junior said, peace is not merely a
distant goal that we seek but a means by which we arrive at
that goal. We should condemn, in the strongest terms, violence
that perpetuates the occupation, whether it is perpetuated by
Israel, Hamas, or individuals. But if we are going to condemn
violent means of assisting the occupation, we cannot also
condemn non-violent means. We cannot simultaneously say we want
peace, then openly oppose peaceful means to hold our allies
accountable. It is precisely when people feel hopeless, when
people feel that nonviolence does not work, that their voices
will not be heard, that they turn toward violence.
This week I introduced a resolution with civil rights
leader, our colleague, John Lewis, and Rashida Tlaib, who know
the importance of nonviolent movements. It recognizes the proud
history of boycott movements in this country leading back to
the Boston Tea Party. We should honor these movements, and that
history, and we should honor our commitment to the principles
that say we must hold our friends to the same standards as we
hold our adversaries.
I understand and appreciate the bipartisan nature and
history of this committee. In fact there are two bills today
that I am cosponsoring with Republicans. And I have cosponsored
the Sri Lankan resolution with Mr. Johnson and the resolution
with Mr. Zeldin. I am also proud to sponsor Mr. Lowenthal's
resolution that we just voted on and excited that every single
person was onboard on our side.
I will not be supporting the en bloc package today.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I yield back.
Chairman Engel. The gentlewoman yields back.
Mr. Zeldin is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Zeldin. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
you bringing this en bloc up today. I fully support this.
And it is important for me to point out a few things as
the--as my colleague who just spoke used the frequent use of
the words of honestly and honest, let's just get to a lot of
what is left out.
So the BDS Movement has not distanced itself from Hamas, a
designated foreign terrorist organization. BDS supporters,
individually, are not distancing themselves from Hamas either.
It is wrong to be blaming all Israeli and Palestinian violence,
quote, as being due to an occupation.
Last Friday, Fathi Hammad, a senior Hamas official called
upon Palestinians worldwide to kill all Jews. This is a senior
Hamas official just before the weekend. During a closed meeting
in October 2017 between Hamas Chief Sinwar and Gazan youth
about reconciling with the Fatah movement, Sinwar Stated that
the time spent discussing recognition of Israel is over and now
Hamas will, instead, discuss when they will wipe Israel out.
Hamas uses women and children as human shields. They declare
Jihad as an obligation. They deny humanitarian aid to their own
people. They deny human rights, launching rockets from Gaza
into Israel, killing innocent of civilians, tens of thousands
of rockets in Lebanon being launched by--ready to be launched
by Hezbollah. Existential threats to Israel all around it, our
greatest ally in the Middle East, one that there has been an
historic relationship between our two nations, a beacon of
hope, and freedom, and liberty in a region of the world that is
filled with challenges. We want to be neutral arbiters. Let's
not deny our right and our duty to also be honest brokers.
To spend an entire time in justifying opposition to H.Res.
246 based off of everything that is wrong is all due to the
Israeli occupation. Why not point out the fact that in 2008,
Israel offered to withdraw from 93 percent of Judea and Samaria
in the West Bank? Or what about our students on college
campuses, right now from coast-to-coast, being targeted with
blatant anti-Semitism in the name of BDS, or taking into
consideration the founder of BDS and all of his blatant anti-
Semitism, or the Palestinian Authority's pay-to-slay? They
financially reward terrorism. They treat you to a State
funeral. They will rename football stadiums after you.
We want to use honest and honesty in our remarks? We will
give you a whole lot more honesty. Every year, Hamas mobilizes
Palestinians in their days of rage to attack Israelis at their
border, calling them to throw rocks and fire missiles at
Israel, often results in actual violence. Hamas uses incendiary
kites and balloons, which has destroyed some 8,000 acres of
Israeli farms, parks, and forests.
And I was pointing out just last Friday a senior Hamas
official called for the murder of every Jew in the world. And
you want to oppose H.Res. 246 under the justification that all
the violence is due to an Israeli occupation with no honesty as
it relates to any of the violence targeting innocent Americans.
By the way, when this committee passed and it became law
the Taylor Force Act, that is not an Israeli citizen. That is a
United States Military veteran, a graduate of the United States
Military Academy at West Point. And the Palestinians paid the
terrorists to murder the innocent American-Israeli. We provide
tax dollars to the Palestinians and we demanded more
accountability.
We could go through the list of the 1,355 people killed by
Palestinian violence and terrorism. I would blame the people
who are inciting that violence and financially rewarding
terror. And I would certainly blame the person who actually is
responsible for that. The person who actually stabs, the person
who shoots, the person who terrorizes. No, they are not
martyrs. They are terrorists.
And Israel, as our great ally, should be supported. And
this work against BDS--I will point out that the BDS founder,
if people aren't familiar with it, quote, we are witnessing the
rapid demise of Zionism and nothing can be done to save it, for
Zionism is intent on killing itself. I, for one, support
euthanasia. That is just one of the quotes.
I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
for what has been fantastic bipartisan support but do not come
to this committee, and in this Congress, and start blaming
Israel for all of the violence that is happening to it and
blaming them for an occupation. That, I will take the strongest
of exception with. And that is not honest to be accusing Israel
of everything that they are suffering from. That----
Mr. Costa [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. Is criticized for good reason.
I yield back.
Mr. Costa. The gentleman yields back.
And the chair will now recognize the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Deutch, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the committee for bringing
up this slate of measures today. I support them.
I want to thank the committee's staff for working
diligently to produce the text before us. Particularly, I would
like to thank Mira Resnick of the majority staff and Gabriella
Zach of the minority staff for their work on H.R. 1837, the
U.S.-Israel Cooperation Enhancement and Regional Security Act,
my bill with Mr. Wilson to strengthen the U.S.-Israel
relationship to provide justice to victims of terror and to
allow security and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians
to continue. And I thank the Middle East staff director--the
Middle East Subcommittee staff director, Casey Kustin, for her
tireless efforts.
This bill puts Congress on record supporting the
unprecedented levels of the 2016 MOU and affirms our unwavering
support for the alliance between the United States and Israel.
The legislation ensures that Israel has the ability to defend
herself from the very real threats posed by terrorist
organizations that sit on her borders. The United States has
always maintained a strong commitment to ensuring that our ally
can defend herself and this bill highlights the way in which we
can guarantee that commitment but our alliance is based on more
than our mutual security concerns. The bond is rooted in mutual
democratic values.
Israel is a vibrant democracy where political parties span
the spectrum from right to left and vigorously debate and
disagree on policy. That bond has fostered collaboration in
many civilian areas, like water and agriculture, which have
yielded dramatic advancements with global impact.
This legislation strengthens existing programs for science
and energy research and promotes the U.S. and Israel working
together to deliver humanitarian aid in developing countries
and it expands new areas of civilian cooperation. The
legislation creates new avenues for regional cooperation in the
high-tech sector, bringing together Israeli and Palestinian
researchers, along with regional Arab countries for projects
that will have a lasting impact on the entire region. And
finally, this bill is a step toward providing American victims
of terrorism with a path to justice.
In 2018, Congress unanimously passed the Anti-Terrorism
Clarification Act that was meant to allow American victims of
Palestinian terror attacks the ability to pursue justice in the
U.S. Courts but an overly broad interpretation resulted in
Palestinians rejecting any U.S. assistance coming into the West
Bank and Gaza, instead of consenting to jurisdiction. This had
the unintended consequence of placing a legal barrier to the
delivery of security and humanitarian development assistance to
the West Bank and Gaza.
U.S. security assistance provides training for Palestinian
security forces to secure the West Bank and facilitate security
coordination between Israel and the P.A. This training program
in the West Bank has resulted in dramatically lower security
incidents. I was just in Israel 2 weeks ago and met with the
three-star U.S. general in charge of security coordination. In
the absence of this funding, security for Israelis and
Palestinians is threatened. It is threatened by the current
status and we must pass this.
Removing this barrier to assistance will also help restore
life-saving humanitarian aid that went not to Palestinian
leadership but to the Palestinian people through American
NGO's. I visited a hospital in East Jerusalem that provides
life-saving cancer treatment to patients from the West Bank.
That hospital has lost 25 percent of its budget. All of this
assistance promotes security and stability. We have a moral
obligation to make sure that we proceed with this, and we have
a moral obligation to help life-saving assistance flow, and to
making sure that victims of terror have the opportunity to be
in court.
I also thank my colleagues for House Resolution 246, which
simply States that Congress opposes the boycott, divestment,
and sanctions against Israel movement. BDS undermines the
prospects for a two-State solution and, as House Resolution 326
affirms, the path toward peace lies in direct negotiations
between Israel and the Palestinians, leading to two States for
two peoples living side-by-side in peace and security, a safe
and secure Israel, and a demilitarized prosperous Palestinian
State. BDS does nothing to further that goal. It does nothing
to encourage both sides to return to negotiations and to
achieve lasting peace.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, time--as was said earlier, the
resolution does not restrict any first amendment rights. It
simply allows Members of Congress to be on the record, opposing
a movement that attempts to delegitimize Israel's very right to
exist.
Time and time again, I hear from college campuses around
the country, from students, they are Zionists. So am I. They
support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State. So do I. And
they feel intimidated and scared to express that support when
people are threatening them.
Palestine from the river to the sea, a chant that is
routinely heard at BDS rallies, it envisions a world without
Israel. That is what is controversial. I reject it. This
committee should reject it. And the whole House should have an
opportunity to reject it as soon as possible.
I thank the chairman and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Costa. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair will now recognize the gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Mast, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman. And while I do not agree
with every aspect of this en bloc package, I would absolutely
want to thank the committee, the committee staff, and all of my
colleagues for their work on this package.
I would like to speak, specifically at this moment, about
some issues that I have a very close personal connection to.
No. 1, being the bill H.R. 1850, the Palestinian International
Terrorism Support Prevention Act, which targets groups by
imposing sanctions on those who knowingly and materially assist
Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or any other affiliate or
successor organization.
And I spoke about this briefly earlier. Why support
sanctions on this group? And I am going to go through a list of
things that I wrote down. In 1994, Hamas suicide bombing, five
are killed; March 1996, a series of Hamas-orchestrated suicide
bombings kill more than 50 people in Israel; June 2003, suicide
bomber disguised as Orthodox Jew detonates himself on Jerusalem
bus, killing 16 Israelis, Hamas claims responsibility; August
2003, suicide bomber detonates himself on a bus, killing 20
Israelis, Hamas and Islamic Jihad claim responsibility; January
2004, Hamas female suicide bomber kills four Israelis; March
2004, double attack at the Israeli Port of Ashdod kills ten
Israelis; August 2004, Hamas claims responsibility for deadly
simultaneous explosion on two buses near Beersheba, killing 14,
wounding more than 80; December 2004, attack at a checkpoint
border between Gaza and Egypt kills five Israelis; January
2005, a bomb at the Israeli-Gaza border kills six Israelis.
January 2006, Hamas, and this is very important, wins a
landslide victory in the Palestinian legislative elections.
They take the majority in their governmental body. Why is that
so important in this en bloc package or anytime we are
considering any legislation relating to a two-State solution?
Because we are talking about putting sanctions on any asset
that knowingly and materially assists Hamas. Well, if the
government is Hamas, then they are assisting Hamas. They are
working with Hamas.
And we are, in the same piece of legislation, talking about
supporting the right to self-determination of a group of people
that conduct all of these terrorist attacks, creating and
acknowledging their government that we would immediately have
to put sanctions on the moment they became a recognized
government that is supporting Hamas because their members are
Hamas. This is an oxymoron that is going on inside of this
package and that is why I do not support the overall package of
this.
To speak about some of the more--some more attacks that
have gone on--and I do have a special bond, I have friends that
have been injured. I, myself, put on the uniform of the IDF in
2015 and met a number of their injured servicemembers from
these attacks in their House of the Warrior, a place where
their servicemembers recover--2009, 569 rocket launches, 289
mortars; 2010, 150 rockets launched; 2011, 680 rockets,
mortars, and missiles launched at Israel; 2012, 2,200 rockets
launched into Israel; 2013, 52 rockets launched into Israel, 16
mortars; 2014, 4,500-plus rockets and mortars launched into
Israel, and so on, and so on; 2018, 1,100; 2019, so far, 700.
Let's not live in the ambiguous. What do these rockets look
like? Ten, twenty, thirty feet high, about as tall as that
clock on the ceiling. Warheads weighing between 100 and 400
pounds. To put that into perspective, the explosive device that
detonated beneath my feet probably weighed about ten pounds.
The fragmentation distance that would put people in danger of
probably in all certainty being killed, about 300 feet for one
of these warheads. Probably 45 feet within these warheads are
going to be killed by the blast.
These are the kind of attacks that are being orchestrated
by Hamas. This is why this legislation is so important and this
is, additionally, why I stand against a two-State solution.
Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costa. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time.
The chair will now recognize Mr. Trone for 5 minutes.
Mr. Trone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also Ranking Member
McCaul. This markup gives us an opportunity for the committee
to weigh in on some very timely topics.
I would like to highlight the measures I am proud to
support today. The first is House Resolution 246, which opposes
the efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel in the Global
Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement targeting Israel.
The BDS Movement is BS. The BDS Movement has been hateful. The
BDS anti-Semitic tropes are hurtful and harmful to the Jewish
and Israeli people. This does long-term damage to all the
people of the region by working against a two-State solution
and it is a disservice to those who are truly dedicated to
peace.
This resolution makes it clear the overwhelming majority of
the House of Representatives believe we must find a peaceful
solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but this cannot be
achieved through unilateral actions of the BDS Movement.
I want to thank Congressman Schneider of Illinois and
Congressman Zeldin of New York for introducing it and I am
proud to vote in favor today.
Finally, I would like to take a moment to mention the
United States-Israel Cooperation Enhancement and Regional
Security Act introduced by Congressman Ted Deutch and Joe
Wilson. The bill codifies a 2016 MOU on security assistance for
Israel, and makes clear that the U.S. will be there to support
Israel in the event of a military attack on the country, and
also ensures we are cooperating in significant and mutually
beneficial ways with Israel on the diverse topics like energy,
agriculture, technology, and humanitarian assistance.
There are so many synergies to be gained by teaming up with
Israel on these projects. The bill has 270 bipartisan
cosponsors and demonstrates an incredible level of support. I
am proud to be a cosponsor and I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of this bill today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. McCaul. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Costa. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time.
And the chair will now recognize the gentleman from Texas,
Mr. Wright.
Mr. Wright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It has been 41 years since the Camp David Accords and, in
that 41 years, there have been more meetings, more conferences,
more attempts at achieving peace than we could possibly
remember. But one thing that history has proven in that 41
years is that if the Palestinian people wanted peace, there
would have already been peace. If they wanted an autonomous
country, they would have already had it because it was offered.
Instead, there is no two-State solution and there will be no
two-State solution, as long as the Palestinian people rely on
terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah.
And with that, I yield the remainder of my time to Mr.
Zeldin.
Mr. Zeldin. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
In addition to the other great resolutions in this en bloc,
I would also like to express my support for H.Con.Res. 32
regarding the execution-style murders of Ylli, 25 years old,
Agron, 23 years old, and Mehmet Bytyqi, 21 years old, who were
born in the United States and resided in Hampton Bays, New
York. This month is the 20th anniversary of the Bytyqi
brothers' murder, which is a poignant reminder as to why the
House should bring this resolution to the floor as soon as
possible.
In July 1999, these three brothers went overseas toward the
end of the Kosovo War and were arrested by Serbian authorities
for illegally entering the country when they accidentally
crossed into Serbian-controlled territory. The brothers were
kidnapped, murdered, and dumped into a mass grave in Serbia by
government officials still serving today.
Since taking office, I have been committed to helping the
Bytyqi family receive the justice that they have long deserved.
In February, Chairman Engel and I traveled to Munich to meet
with Serbian President Vucic, where he once again promised to
resolve the case of the Bytyqi brothers. Despite many promises
by Serbian officials to resolve the case of this State-
sponsored murder, there has been no justice served.
This resolution notes that progress with this investigation
should remain a significant factor which determines the further
development of U.S.-Serbian relations. Just last month,
Congressman Engel and I sent a letter to the International
Criminal Tribunal opposing the early release of Vlastimir
Djordjevic, which would be a missed opportunity to obtain
information that could lead to justice.
The Bytyqi brothers gave their lives to fight for
injustice. Now we must return this favor and deliver justice
for their family.
I would like to thank Chairman Engel and lead Republican
McCaul for their leadership and assistance on this issue with
regards to this resolution.
I appreciate the committee's consideration of all of the
resolutions in this en bloc package.
H.Res. 246 should be pointed out that the lead sponsor,
Brad Schneider, has been in attendance throughout today's
hearing. It has been great working with him and our colleagues
on both sides of the aisle for a resolution that is now up to
340 cosponsors.
Mr. Costa. Well, thank you, Congressman Zeldin. Your
acknowledgments will be recognized appropriately.
So yielding back the balance of your time, the Chair wants
to, sooner than later, close this committee hearing, and will
briefly recognize Congressman Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. I strongly support all of the en bloc and have
a long speech for each of them but will just say H.Res. 246 is
necessary. It has been attacked as somehow a violation of free
speech. It is a nonbinding resolution that simply expresses
Congress' free speech on this issue. Only on certain American
campuses is this thought to be a violation of the first
amendment for somebody to simply say something that is in favor
of Israel.
And finally, on 442 that recognizes the 10-year anniversary
of the Sri Lanka--the end of the Sri Lankan civil war, the Sri
Lankan Government has not done nearly enough to heal the
conflict. The military continues to occupy much Tamil land,
that was seized during and immediately after the war, and this
land needs to be returned to really put the war--to really
create peace.
The government has also failed to meet its promises to
amend the constitution to give more autonomy and power to the
Tamil regions. And evolution of power to local levels is the
best ensure future peace.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Costa. The gentleman yields back.
Are there any other members seeking recognition? I hope
not.
Well, hearing none and seeing none, the chair will now
recognize himself briefly.
I want to thank the Ranking Member McCaul and Chairman
Engel for the good work that they and the committee members
have done on this en bloc series of resolutions, legislation,
and amendments that reflect, I think, a consensus on this
important Foreign Relations Committee that attempts to every
day work on behalf of the American people, in terms of what is
in the best interest of America's foreign policy.
Clearly, the challenges that we discussed here today as it
relates to the Middle East, particularly with regards to Israel
and the West Bank, the Palestinians, have been vexing issues
for decades. My first visit to Israel was back in 1981. I have
had numerous visits to that part of the world, like many
members of this committee. I actually spent a vacation just a
few years ago in Israel.
While there has been progress made in many areas, the
ability to arrive at a two-State solution still seems to be
very, very difficult, as we all know. But I think that the good
will and the good work in a bipartisan effort by this committee
will continue to try to move the ball forward, ultimately, to
find a two-State solution that will resolve the challenges we
see there and, hopefully, have a lasting peace. Certainly, that
is the goal that we all share.
Hearing no further requests for recognition, then, without
objection, the committee will proceed to consider the noticed
items en bloc. A reporting quorum is present. Without
objection, each measure is considered as read. The amendments
to each are considered as read and agreed to.
The question occurs on the measures en block, as amended,
if amended.
All those in favor, say aye.
All those opposed?
Hearing none, in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have
it.
The measures considered en bloc are agreed to and, without
objection, each measure is ordered favorably reported, as
amended, if amended, and each amendment to each bill shall be
reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute.
And, without objection, the staff is authorized to make any
technical and conforming changes to any of the measures
considered during today's markup.
And we thank the staff in a bipartisan fashion for all of
their good work.
The chair will now recognize Mr. McCaul for a request.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Pursuant to House Rules, I ask that members have two
calendar days to file with the clerk of the committee
supplemental, additional, or minority views on any of the bills
ordered reported by the committee today.
Mr. Costa. All right. This concludes the business for the
day. I want to thank Ranking Member McCaul, and for all the
committee members, and Chairman Engel for allowing me to close
this hearing, all of the committee members for their
contributions, and assistance in today's markup, and the
comments that were made.
At this time, the committee now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
MARKUP SUMMARY
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]