[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                        MARKUP VARIOUS MEASURES

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

                                 MARKUP

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                             JUNE 21, 2023
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-34
                               __________

        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
                    
52-788PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023                          
                       
                       

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                   MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     GREGORY MEEKS, New Yok, Ranking 
JOE WILSON, South Carolina               Member
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania	     BRAD SHERMAN, California
DARRELL ISSA, California	     GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
ANN WAGNER, Missouri		     WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
BRIAN MAST, Florida		     DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
KEN BUCK, Colorado		     AMI BERA, California
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee		     JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee	     DINA TITUS, Nevada
ANDY BARR, Kentucky		     TED LIEU, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas		     SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
YOUNG KIM, California		     DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida	     COLIN ALLRED, Texas
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan		     ANDY KIM, New Jersey
AMATA COLEMAN-RADEWAGEN, American    SARA JACOBS, California
    Samoa		             KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas	             SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK,
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio			Florida
JIM BAIRD, Indiana		     GREG STANTON, Arizona
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida		     MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TOM KEAN, JR., New Jersey	     JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
MIKE LAWLER, New York		     JONATHAN JACOBS, Illinois
CORY MILLS, Florida		     SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
RICH MCCORMICK, Georgia		     JIM COSTA, California
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas		     JASON CROW, Colorado
JOHN JAMES, Michigan		     BRAD SCHNEIDER. Illinois
KEITH SELF, Texas

                                     
                    Brendan Shields, Staff Director

                    Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                      BILLS AND AMENDMENTS EN BLOC

H.R. 3033........................................................     3
H. RES. 492......................................................     6
H.R. 4039........................................................    14
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 4039 OFFERED BY 
  MR. MORAN......................................................    17
H.R. 4132........................................................    20
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 4132 OFFERED BY 
  MR. PERRY......................................................    27
H.R. 1150........................................................    45
H. RES. 488......................................................    58
AMENDMENT TO H. RES. 488 OFFERED BY MR. PERRY....................    68

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................    81
Hearing Attendance...............................................    83
Hearing Minutes..................................................    84

    STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY

Statement submitted for the record from Representative Connolly..    85

                 RECORDED VOTE SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Recorded vote submitted for the record...........................    86

                             MARKUP SUMMARY

Markup summary...................................................    87

 
                       MARKUP OF VARIOUS MEASURES

                        Wednesday, June 21, 2023

                          House of Representatives,
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m., in 
room 210, House Visitor Center, Hon. Michael McCaul (chairman 
of the committee) presiding.
    Chairman McCaul. A quorum being present, the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs will come to order.
    The committee is meeting today for consideration of H.R. 
3033, Solidify Iran Sanctions Act of 2023, H.Res. 492, 
condemning the Government of Iran's State-sponsored persecution 
of the Baha'i minority and its continued violation of the 
International Covenants on Human Rights, H.Res. 488, calling on 
the Biden Administration to immediately provide Army Tactical 
Missile Systems, otherwise known as ATACMS, to Ukraine, H.R. 
4039, to prohibit the use of funds supporting any activities 
within Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People's 
Republic of China, H.R. 4132, to provide for the imposition of 
sanctions with respect to forced organ harvesting within the 
People's Republic of China and for other purposes, and H.R. 
1150, the John Lewis Civil Rights Fellowship Act of 2023.
    The chair announces that any requests for recorded votes 
may be rolled. And he may recess the committee at any point. 
Without objection, so ordered.
    Pursuant to House rules, I request that members have the 
opportunity to submit views for any committee report that may 
be produced on any of today's measures. And without objection, 
so ordered.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up measures and their 
amendments that were circulated in advance, which without 
objection will be considered en bloc. And each measure is 
considered as read and the amendments to each are considered as 
read and are agreed to.
    And without objection, after remarks the committee will 
vote to order the measures favorably reported en bloc as 
amended, if amended. And each measure so amended shall be 
reported as single amendment in the nature of a substitute. I 
hope everybody understood what I just said.
    The measures in the en block package are H.R. 3033, 
Solidify Iran Sanctions Act of 2023, H.Res. 492, condemning the 
Government of Iran's State-sponsored persecution of the Baha'i 
minority, H.R. 4039, prohibit the use of funds supporting any 
activities within the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the 
People's Republic of China, with the Moran amendment number 23 
in the nature of a substitute, H.R. 4132, to provide for the 
imposition of sanctions with respect to forced organ harvesting 
within the People's Republic of China and for other purposes, 
with the Perry amendment number 224 in the nature of a 
substitute, and H.R. 1150, the John Lewis Civil Rights 
Fellowship Act of 2023.
    [The Bills H.R. 3033, H.Res. 492, H.R. 4039, H.R. 4132, and 
H.R. 1150 follow:]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman McCaul. I now recognize myself for a statement on 
the en bloc.
    The Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 has been the backbone of 
U.S. sanctions on Iran. The law sets a sunset in 2026. The 
Solidify Iran Sanctions Act strikes the sunset provision for 
this law. Instead of expiring on an arbitrary deadline, 
sanctions will remain until Iran shows it no longer poses a 
threat.
    Last week I was disturbed the Administration was 
negotiating a secret deal with Iran, including possible 
payments. It is reckless and dangerous to reward Iran for its 
escalatory and provocative behavior, such as enriching uranium, 
attacking Americans in the Middle East, arming the Kremlin, and 
its violent crackdown on the Iranian people.
    It is important that Congress lead the way in showing our 
sanctions on Iran will only be lifted if Iran stops its malign 
behavior. The Solidify Iran Sanctions Act will ensure that our 
adversaries and those who enable them cannot wait out our 
sanctions programs. They must change their behavior or face the 
consequences.
    On the John Lewis resolution, I want to thank Mr. Meeks for 
bringing this forward. It is very thoughtful. We all were 
honored to serve with John Lewis, who we all know served in the 
Civil Rights Movement, was arrested 40 times. He marched with 
Martin Luther King.
    He was really walking history in the halls of Congress. And 
I was honored to be associated with him. And I will never 
forget going to his office, having just a private conversation 
with him about his experiences and what he did with his life. 
We all had tremendous respect for him.
    Part of the Freedom Riders protesting segregated bus 
terminals in the South, helped organize the march on Washington 
where Martin Luther King gave the I Have a Dream speech. He was 
the youngest speaker at that very historical event. He 
organized the Selma to Montgomery marches and became one of the 
victims in the Sunday Bloody Sunday attacks. Footage of him 
being beaten by the police was a catalyst for the signing of 
the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He was recognized as one of the 
big six leaders of the Civil Rights Movement. He served 18 
terms in Congress. And he really reached out to a younger 
generation.
    He passed away, as we all saw, in 2020 at the age of 80. 
But his dream, his life still lives on in the halls of this 
Congress and in the hearts and minds of us here today. He had 
numerous awards that I could go on and on. But just suffice it 
to say he was a great man and one I had tremendous respect and 
admiration for. And again, it was an honor to serve with him.
    This act, this bill will amend the Mutual Educational and 
Cultural Exchange Act and establish the John Lewis Civil Rights 
Fellowship under the Fulbright educational exchange program. It 
honors his legacy. It promotes greater understanding of non-
violent civil rights movements. It advances U.S. foreign policy 
priorities by studying and understanding non-violent civil 
rights movements. And it is intended to find international 
internships, research and placements for qualified 
professionals. And it will live, it will honor this man, this 
great man and the dream that he had that he actually saw 
fulfilled in his lifetime, although the struggle still 
continues in some respects.
    So, with that, I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. 
Meeks, for a statement.
    Mr. Meeks. And with that, thank you, Chairman McCaul, for 
work and working collectively on this.
    I support all of the measures in the en bloc package. This 
committee works best, accomplishes the most, and speaks with 
power when we act and legislate in a bipartisan way. Of course, 
we will have our differences. And sometimes those will manifest 
in the disagreement over certain pieces of legislation. But 
there is more agreement than disagreement. And we start from 
the same shared principles of peace, democracy, development, 
and human rights here in the United States and around the 
world. These measures reflect these principles and the 
bipartisan spirit of this committee.
    Another man who reflected these principles and a man a few 
of us cannot imagine or even aspire to be was the late, great 
Congressman John Lewis. July 17th of this year will mark the 
third anniversary of the passing of our dear colleague, civil 
rights icon, and a true catalyst for change in this Nation. 
Congressman John Lewis was often referred to as the conscience 
of this congressional body, a sentiment of which I 
wholeheartedly agree. And I miss hearing his voice in this 
body.
    The bill before us today, introduced by his successor, 
Representative Nikema Williams, establishes the John Lewis 
Civil Rights Fellowship under the Fulbright program. I extend 
my deep appreciation to Representative Williams for her 
steadfast commitment to upholding the legacy of Mr. Lewis by 
reintroducing this bill, which also passed the House in the 
117th Congress.
    In reflecting on his legacy, I am reminded of a quote from 
his 2017 memoir. He stated, ``Freedom is not a State. It's an 
act. It is the continuous action we all must take, and each 
generation must do its part to create an even more fair, more 
just society.' ' This bill honors that call to action.
    The John Lewis Civil Rights Fellowship program presents an 
opportunity for young scholars to engage in international 
internships and research related to global civil rights 
movements and non-violent means of promoting change. These 
scholars will promote the teaching of human rights advocacy, 
while also promoting international and intercultural exchange.
    Although we may not ever live up to the life and legacy of 
the incomparable Congressman John Lewis, let this fellowship be 
a reminder to never stop trying. So I hope everyone on this 
committee joins me in supporting this bill.
    This markup also includes two important bills related to a 
country that does not embrace freedom or human rights or 
genuine democracy, and that is Iran.
    The first of these bills, the Iran Sanctions Act, or ISA, 
would remove the sunset from this foundational Iranian 
sanctions legislation. Strong multilateral sanctions drove Iran 
to the negotiating table to finalize the joint plan of action, 
which effectively shut off every pathway to an Iranian nuclear 
weapon before it was unwisely torn down in 2018, leaving us in 
the dangerous position we are now in. The ISA is the only major 
Iran sanctions statute that contains a sunset provision, which 
has been reauthorized numerous times. This legislation goes an 
additional step further and sends an important message to Iran 
and promotes our national security.
    I would also like to thank Representative Schakowsky for 
her resolution in support of the Baha'i people. This resolution 
has passed the House several times and calls for support of the 
Baha'i and all others that suffer persecution in Iran.
    I also support two measures on this markup that concern 
human rights issues in China.
    The measure from Representative Moran prohibits the State 
Department and USAID funding any programs or projects that use 
materials made using forced labor. In the last Congress, this 
committee led on human rights and democracy issues in China. 
And I was proud to chair a hearing on the ongoing genocide in 
Xinjiang.
    In April 2021, we also marked up the Uyghur Forced Labor 
Prevention Act, perhaps the most significant China human rights 
legislation in decades. Speaker Pelosi, Chairman McGovern, and 
I worked in a bipartisan way to get that bill signed into law 
to prevent goods and products made with forced labor being sold 
in the United States.
    By passing this bill, we will once again walk the walk and 
the talk, and talk the talk on our values. We must act to 
protect human rights and stand up to end atrocities and human 
rights abuses.
    And finally, I support H.R. 4132, which imposes sanctions 
on persons who participate or facilitate in the forced 
harvesting of organs. This is an abhorrent practice. The House 
has already spoken on this issue by passing Mr. Smith's Stop 
Forced Organ Harvesting Act in March. And I am happy to again 
draw attention to this issue and support this bill.
    So, again, Chairman McCaul, thank you for working with me 
on this bipartisan markup. And I am proud to join with you in 
urging support of all the measures in the en bloc and on 
today's markup.
    Chairman McCaul. And I thank the ranking member.
    Do any other members seek recognition? Mr. Perry is 
recognized.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you for 
bringing this markup to us and for the bills in it, for you and 
the ranking member.
    I support all the bills, obviously, in the en bloc 
amendment and the one not in the en bloc amendment. I want to 
speak particularly to the one that I have offered.
    Since the early 1990's, the Falun Gong have been targeted 
by the Chinese Communist Party. And on July 20, 1999, the CCP 
detained hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners and 
banned the practice of the religion. Since this date, the 
Chinese Communist Party has continued to escalate its 
systematic oppression against the Falun Gong practitioners.
    Multiple studies have shown that the number of organ 
transplants in China are impossible compared to the number of 
those on the organ transplant list and that you can schedule 
appointments to get certain organs that are currently 
impossible to know in advance if they are available. I mean, 
you could just do the math. And everybody knows what is 
happening here, even though it is hard to prove because the CCP 
makes sure that China is closed to actual scrutiny.
    On March 1, 2020, the Independent Tribunal into Forced 
Harvesting from Prisoners of Conscience in China found that all 
the number of organ transplants were not possible. They 
concluded that, and I quote, ``forced organ harvesting has been 
committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and 
that the Falun Gong practitioners have been one and probably 
the main source of organ supply.' ' It is staggering. It is 
astounding.
    The report continues, the PRC and its leaders actively 
incited the persecution, the imprisonment, murder, torture, and 
humiliation of the Falun Gong practitioners with the sole 
purpose of eliminating the practice of and belief in the value 
of the Falun Gong. The CCP has no regard for the individual 
citizens of China and continues to carry out horrendous 
practices that never had a place in society whatsoever.
    This barbaric practice absolutely must stop. It shocks the 
conscience to think about it. And to know that it is happening 
as we sit here is unnerving to say the least.
    This bill would begin to pave the way to sanctions, to 
actual punishment, to actual acknowledgment coupled with action 
on those individuals involved in this appalling practice. The 
United States cannot stand by and do nothing. The United States 
must use its sanctioning authority to curb those who would be 
involved in such practices.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time. Again, I support 
the en bloc package. I support the entire package generally 
speaking. And again, I appreciate the opportunity to have the 
bill heard and voted on. With that, I yield.
    Chairman McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Perry. And I appreciate you 
bringing that bill forward. It is absolutely just reprehensible 
that practice is happening as we speak.
    The chair recognizes Ms. Manning.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member 
Meeks, for your work on these measures.
    I am proud to support the en bloc package, including H.R. 
3033, the Solidify Iran Sanctions Act, a bipartisan bill I 
cosponsored to permanently extend the Iran Sanctions Act of 
1996.
    Mr. Chairman, Iran is the principal source of instability 
in the region and a threat to our interests around the world. 
As the leading State sponsor of terrorism, Iran backs terrorist 
proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, which are dedicated to 
Israel's destruction. Iran is arming Russian forces with drones 
used on the battlefield against Ukraine and is deepening its 
defense cooperation with Putin. We must continue to counter 
these efforts and hold Iran accountable for its malign and 
destructive behavior.
    But an armed Iran with nuclear weapons would represent an 
even greater and entirely unacceptable threat. Members of both 
parties agree that Iran must never be permitted to acquire a 
nuclear weapon. And the president has made clear that all 
options are on the table to ensure it will never happen.
    However, Iran continues to enrich uranium to dangerous 
levels, bringing it closer than ever to being able to produce a 
nuclear weapon. Iran has stockpiled uranium at 60 percent 
purity. And in one recent instance, the IAEA inspectors even 
detected the presence of uranium particles enriched up to 84 
percent. Iran's breakout time, once up to a year, could be down 
to a matter of weeks.
    And in the meantime, Iran has made significant advancements 
to its nuclear infrastructure and know-how that are unlikely to 
be reversed. If Iran continues down this path, it threatens to 
become a nuclear threshold State. That is why now is the time 
to maintain pressure on Iran and continue to enforce the strong 
economic sanctions that we have in place.
    Extending the Iran Sanctions Act, which authorizes critical 
sanctions against investment in Iran's petroleum sector are set 
to expire in 2026, sends a clear message about Congress' 
commitment to hold Iran accountable. Going forward, I hope we 
can implement a comprehensive, long-term strategy for dealing 
with Iran's malign behavior and preventing its nuclear program.
    In closing, Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support the 
Solidify Iran Sanctions Act and maintaining pressure on Iran. I 
encourage all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
bill. Thank you. And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
    Do any other members seek recognition? Mr. Moran is 
recognized.
    Mr. Moran. Thank you, Chairman McCaul, for bringing my 
bill, H.R. 4039, the No Dollars to Uyghur Forced Labor Act, to 
committee for consideration as part of this en bloc package.
    To counter China's Belt and Road Initiative, we need to 
continue to invest in strategic partnerships and projects 
overseas. What defeats this purpose is being complicit in the 
Chinese Communist Party's horrific atrocities against Uyghur 
Muslims and others. We must not lower ourselves to the level of 
the CCP in the way that we treat our fellow man. We are simply 
better than that. And we must defeat the threat of China's 
malign influence worldwide by sending a message that we will 
not in any way, shape, or form condone the CCP's detainment and 
persecution of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities.
    The No Dollars to Uyghur Forced Labor Act ensures that no 
American taxpayer dollars be used to give China profit for raw 
materials or goods produced using forced labor in the Xinjiang 
region of China. For those unaware, many basic goods are being 
produced in the Xinjiang region today, products like bricks, 
nails, cotton, hair products, gloves, and polysilicon, all 
foundational resources to commerce. And they are doing so on 
the backs of slave labor.
    But the U.S. has strengthened our companies and partners 
globally to build other robust supply chains that are free of 
slave labor. And we should not subsidize or support entities 
that base their production and profits in the Xinjiang region. 
The blatant disregard for human rights and religious freedom 
for minorities in the People's Republic of China is detestable. 
And the United States should not be a party to it.
    More than one million people are held hostage by the CCP 
and placed in re-education centers, modern-day concentration 
camps, and forced to assimilate by disavowing their own ethnic 
backgrounds and involuntarily being taught a whitewashed 
version of Chinese history, as described by the CCP.
    There is witness testimony that some Uyghurs were paid two 
pennies to make a pair of gloves. One witness said she could 
only make 11 pairs per day. That is 22 cents a day for forced 
labor. Those detained are unable to leave, unable to see their 
families, unable to communicate with their loved ones. Victims 
simply have no hope of leaving that system. They know they will 
be monitored by the police and oppressive surveillance systems 
if they try to. And survivors recount that the CCP regularly 
canceled passports and lured minorities to China only to detain 
them and use them for forced labor.
    The CCP also manipulates people by purporting to offer free 
health checks, only then to use that opportunity to collect 
their personal identification information, such as DNA, 
fingerprints, and blood samples. If this is the society and 
culture the CCP is creating, we must stand against every facet 
of it to ensure that U.S. tax dollars are not directly or 
indirectly furthering the CCP's brutal and cruel regime.
    We are fortunate to live in a country where we can practice 
our faiths freely, whether Christian, Muslim, or otherwise. And 
I wholeheartedly believe in these values and will uphold them 
to the best of my abilities. We are a country of freedom. We 
must stand for freedom. We must ensure that our State 
Department and our entities here as government agents do not 
engage in business that supports slave or forced labor in the 
Uyghur, within the Uyghur people and within the Xinjiang 
province. One more penny to the oppressive PRC government to 
fund slave labor is a penny too many.
    That said, I urge support of my bill, H.R. 4039, and 
support the bills en bloc presented today.
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Do any other members seek recognition?
    There being no further discussion, the committee will 
proceed to consider the noticed items en bloc. Pursuant to the 
previous order, the question occurs on the measures en bloc as 
amended, if amended.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. And the 
measures en bloc are agreed to.
    I request a recorded vote. Pursuant to the chair's previous 
announcement, this vote will be postponed.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.Res. 488, calling on 
the Biden administrative to immediately provide Army Tactical 
Missile Systems, or ATACMS, to Ukraine. The resolution was 
circulated in advance. And the clerk shall designate the 
resolution.
    [The Bill H.Res. 488 follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Clerk. H.Res. 488, calling on the Biden Administration 
to immediately provide Army Tactical Missile Systems to 
Ukraine. Whereas, the----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is 
dispensed with. The resolution is considered read and open to 
amendment at any point.
    I recognize myself in support of the measure.
    This resolution urges the Administration to send ATACMS to 
Ukraine. It is bipartisan. ATACMS are critical to Ukraine's 
success in the counteroffensive. ATACMS have a range of about 
190 miles, allowing Ukrainians to strike into Russian-held 
territory.
    Last summer GMLRs, rockets launched from HIMARs, changed 
the face of the war. Ukrainians hit Russian logistics hubs, 
ammunition dumps, and command and control posts behind enemy 
lines. This crippled Russia's artillery advantage in resisting 
Ukraine's successful fall counteroffensives in the northeast 
and south. ATACMS could also be used to strike Iranian-made 
drones in Crimea.
    The Biden Administration's fear of ``escalation' ' 
surrounding ATACMS is misguided. Ukraine has pledged not to use 
them to strike Russian territory. The U.K. has also sent air 
launched Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine with a similar range 
as ATACMS.
    There is no reason to give Ukraine just enough to bleed but 
not enough to win. That has been my criticism all along. If we 
are going to be helping them, you either go all in or you get 
out. And we are not going all in, and we give them enough to 
survive but not for victory.
    So I would urge this Administration to put what they need. 
I urge them--first it was the Stingers, then Javelins. That is 
too provocative. And then they finally went in. And the HIMARs 
are too provocative, now the ATACMS. Cluster munitions should 
be going in. The Russians are using them.
    I urged them to test, train pilots with F-16s in the event 
they ever did go forward with the F-16s. The G7 put pressure on 
the president to unleash F-16s from countries like Denmark and 
others. But we do not have the pilots.
    The counteroffensive has started. And it is unfortunate 
they do not have everything they need to win and for victory. 
But I support this resolution because it is the right thing to 
do.
    I now recognize--or is there any further discussion on the 
resolution? Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I support H.R. 488 put forward by Rep. Kean. It is a 
further statement from this committee regarding bipartisan 
support for Ukraine. I hope we can--and keep that bipartisan 
support, which is really important. As Ukraine continues its 
counteroffensive to liberate its territory, the United States, 
along with our partners and allies, must consider all ways that 
we can help Ukraine win and bring us closer to peace.
    For Ukrainians living in occupied territories every day 
brings horror in the face of the Kremlin's genocidal aims. Any 
Russian push toward victory is keenly watched by other 
authoritarians in the world, not the least China. So I support 
the Administration working with our allies joining efforts 
together and to prudently send long-range missile capabilities 
to Ukraine's capable war fighters.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any further discussion on the resolution? Mr. Davidson is 
recognized.
    Mr. Davidson. I thank the chairman.
    And I think the observation, that there is bipartisan 
support and frankly support around the United States of America 
for the people of Ukraine. The problem is we haven't committed 
to a mission. I have asked Secretary Blinken to define what he 
thinks the mission is.
    And the reality is how we allocate resources to support 
Ukraine is entirely different based on the mission. Now, for 
the people of Ukraine, they may have a different mission than 
the United States. And we should recognize that.
    But there are a whole range of just wars that could be 
waged in Ukraine. We could say that we support a mission that 
this war doesn't spread to NATO. We have an obligation as a 
member of NATO to make sure that we protect NATO. It is 
supposed to be a defensive alliance. And that would be the most 
narrow mission that we might pursue in our own self-interest.
    But that is a different resource set than if we said we 
support a mission to make sure there are no more Russians in 
Ukraine, a lot more resources, and far more resources still to 
say that we support a mission where there are no Russians in 
Ukraine or Crimea. That takes different resources.
    And the most aggressive kind of unlimited war, unrestricted 
war that it would take to have what Victoria Nuland has said 
she thinks the mission is or should be, which is regime change 
in Russia, including war crimes tribunals for Vladimir Putin. 
We have to recognize that would include occupying part of 
Russia, toppling their government, and replacing them with a 
different government.
    And when you do not define the mission, no one can be held 
accountable for success. What is actually happening, and I 
appreciate the chairman for recognizing, by giving them a few 
resources and an open checkbook, we are not defining what it 
takes to win.
    In fact, Senator Warner stated what he thinks the mission 
is apparently. He thinks it is great that we are grinding down 
the Russian army. And we are, except it is coming at the 
expense not just of the Ukrainian army, as he pointed out, but 
the entire nation of Ukraine. It is also coming at the expense 
of our own government and frankly other Western governments 
that are supporting Ukraine without a path to achieve an actual 
victory, unless the simple goal is to grind down the army.
    That is not a just war. It is certainly not being waged 
justly. And we owe it to the men and women, if we commit to a 
war, even a proxy war, that we define the mission before we 
commit to the mission.
    This is not a just war the way it is being waged, but it 
could be. And I cannot support another dime for a cause where 
we won't define the outcome. We cannot have any more presidents 
waving banners declaring victory when the world knows that is 
just not true. And by continuing this without insisting that we 
define the mission, that is exactly the conditions we are 
setting, is another endless war with no defined end state, no 
exit strategy tied to no coherent strategy whatsoever.
    In the meantime, as this war goes on, a long war benefits 
Russia. A long war means that Ukraine is not part of NATO and 
Ukraine is not fully integrated into the European Union. While 
it has united Europe broadly, it is being used to divide it to 
this day, because the other big celebrator of this war is 
China. China just this week was in Germany. China has already 
convinced France to somehow break with Europe and become an 
ally of China.
    And our national security interests are represented, not 
just in NATO and the defensive alliance, but in the, as 
Secretary Blinken refers to it, the rules-based order that came 
at the end of World War II. The monetary system that we have 
today is seeing the dollar diminished and displaced by the 
block that China is organizing.
    And so when we do not define the mission, when we do not 
tie it to a coherent strategy, we aren't advancing America's 
national security interests. We are undermining it. And that is 
exactly what happened with the misguided, two-decade long 
funding of an endless war with Central Command, no defined end 
State, no one held accountable for success or celebrated for 
victory.
    It is time we learned the lessons of the past, and we 
define the mission. We define what success looks like. We set 
an achievable end State. And then we match the resources to the 
mission.
    So I stay opposed to this bill. And I yield.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Any further discussion on the resolution? Mr. Crow is 
recognized.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you to Chairman 
Kean and others for drafting this bill.
    I support the spirit of this. You know, you would be hard-
pressed I think to find someone in Congress who has been as 
all-in as I have been in supporting Ukraine. I believe it is a 
fight for democracy. I believe it is a fight for freedom. I 
believe it is a fight for the future of the Ukrainian people 
and that the United States also has a vested interest.
    And in fact, I led, along with Tony Gonzales, my friend on 
the other side of the aisle, a bipartisan letter just 2 weeks 
ago calling for the provision of ATACMS, calling for expedited 
aid and increased aid. But I am going to be opposing this 
particular provision. And here is why.
    I think it is important that we are very careful in our 
language. I think it is important that when we talk about these 
issues that we are very specific about our facts, we are very 
specific about the language that we are using. And there are 
two provisions here that give me some heartburn.
    No. 1, the whereas clause that talks about the collective 
possession of thousands of ATACMS. The ATACMS number is a 
classified number, right. I know what it is. I know many people 
on this committee know what it is. It might be higher than 
that. It might be lower than that. But I think stating a number 
could lead to public confusion about what that number actually 
is and what is possible to be transferred.
    So, if we are able to strike that number and just talk 
about the fact that we have these in our inventory, I think 
that would be a more prudent course of talking about this.
    No. 2, the resolution clause that ``expresses concern that 
the delay in the provision of this critical weapon system could 
prolong the war.' ' There is just no facts that support that 
that is indeed true, that the provision of any single weapon 
system could prolong the war.
    Now, collectively the aid could prolong or hasten the war 
or break the stalemate. But I do not like the idea of saying 
that one system in and of itself could do that, especially in 
light of the fact that our allies have provided the Storm 
Shadow, which is actually being used effectively and 
significantly on the field of battle, prolonging or extending 
the range of fires. Other allies are also considering providing 
similar variants of the Storm Shadow or their own version of a 
long-range rocket system. So, to say that this, that a delay in 
this one system would prolong gives me a little bit of 
heartburn.
    So I am going to vote against this one. But I would love to 
work with Mr. Kean and others to come up with some language 
that I might be able to support. Most of this I actually think 
is tremendous and I would support and would be happy to do so 
on the floor if it comes for a floor vote, pending resolution 
of my two concerns.
    I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. I just want to note to the members that 
these bills were circulated a week in advance for the sole 
purpose that members could work out their differences. And I 
find in this, actually, in working with Mr. Perry, which, you 
know, to get these bills a week in advance gives members time 
to work out differences. And so I would urge the members to 
read the bills when they are circulated a week in advance so we 
can avoid this type of situation and that we can work things 
out in advance.
    The gentleman yields.
    Any further discussion? Mr. Kean is recognized.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the 
support of this resolution.
    We are now a year and a half into Russia's unprovoked war 
of aggression. Ukraine recently kicked off its bold, long-
awaited counteroffensive to liberate territory from the 
brutality of Russian occupation. That assault is bolstered by 
hundreds of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles provided by 
the United States and our partners and our allies.
    Unfortunately, there are several weapons that Ukraine has 
requested that are missing from this counteroffensive because 
the Biden Administration has refused to provide them. One of 
these weapons is the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS.
    With a range of almost two hundred miles, in Ukrainian 
hands these missile could wreck havoc deep inside Russian 
occupied territory by striking command and control outposts, 
ammunition depots, and other sensitive targets. These strikes 
would cripple Russia's ability to resist Ukraine's 
counteroffensive, thus saving Ukrainian lives and enabling 
success of Ukraine's assault.
    However, due to a misguided fear of escalating the war, the 
Biden Administration has refused to provide these weapons to 
our friends in Ukraine. This is despite the fact that Ukraine 
has consistently promised not to use ATACMS to strike targets 
within Russia itself. Having ATACMS in their arsenal would 
simply enable the Ukrainians to target almost all of their own 
territory currently occupied by the Russians. It would give the 
Russians few places to hide on sovereign Ukrainian land.
    Sadly, the pointless delay in providing ATACMS follows a 
consistent theme throughout the entirely of this conflict. The 
Biden Administration will slow walk the delivery of a major 
U.S. weapon system out of fear of escalating this conflict, 
only to later relent and provide that very system to Ukraine. 
In every instance, the Kremlin has not significantly 
retaliated. But President Biden's delay has cost countless 
Ukrainian lives and only dragged this war out longer.
    In the beginning of the conflict, the United States delayed 
the transfer of Stingers because of a so-called red line drawn 
by Putin. Yet there is, no wider escalation occurred when we 
eventually provided those to Ukraine. And later, the 
Administration delayed the transfer of Patriot missile 
batteries and HIMARs to Ukraine, as they eventually provided 
those with no significant response from the Kremlin.
    This year we have again seen this with Western main battle 
tanks and now the training of Ukrainian fighter pilots on 
Western fighter aircraft. These were provided almost a year 
after they were first requested from the United States. How 
many more brave Ukrainians must die before this Administration 
determines that they have earned ATACMS?
    This Administration's hesitancy to provide these missiles 
to Ukraine is all the more baffling because the United Kingdom 
recently transferred Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, which 
have a range similar to the ATACMS. Unsurprisingly, this was 
not met with wider escalation by the Russians outside of 
Ukraine.
    While the United States delays, Putin sources new drones 
and missiles from its partners in Iran, giving him the ability 
to carry out attacks on civilian targets in Ukraine and 
sustaining his war effort.
    I recognize that there are some hesitations among those in 
this body out of concern that the transfer of ATACMS may lower 
the U.S. stockpiles and decrease American readiness. But let's 
look at the facts.
    The Fiscal Year National Defense Authorization Act 
authorized the purchase of 1,700 ATACMS for the United States. 
Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine a year 
and a half ago, the Pentagon has approved the sale of a total 
of 211 ATACMS missiles to six countries, none of whom are 
currently in a war of national survival. Clearly there are 
enough ATACMS to go around, and we can afford to send some to 
Ukraine. Let's be clear. Ukraine does not need our entire 
stockpile of ATACMS. A few well-placed missiles in Ukrainian 
hands could do the job.
    Additionally, just as we have seen past systems transfers, 
the United States has sought out support from allies and 
partners who have these weapons also transferred some of their 
stocks. When we lead by example, our allies follow.
    Also, these missiles would not be transferred via any new 
appropriations but by the authority already granted to the 
president in previous legislation.
    I am proud to have introduced this bipartisan resolution 
with my colleagues, the chairman of the full committee, Mr. 
McCaul, and ranking member of the Europe Subcommittee, Mr. 
Keating, and Messrs. Lieu, Wilson, and Golden. I also want to 
thank the other members of this committee and chamber, both 
Republicans and Democrats alike, who have since cosponsored 
this resolution.
    I urge this committee to favorably pass this resolution out 
of committee and stand with our brave partners in Ukraine.
    I yield back my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Any further discussion? Mr. Keating is recognized.
    Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 
you and the ranking member for holding this important markup 
today.
    And I want to speak briefly on two measures we are 
considering in today's markup. The first is House Res. 488, a 
resolution which support U.S. provisions of Army Tactical 
Missile Systems to Ukraine, also known as ATACMS.
    For the first 15 months, Ukraine has fought valiantly and 
courageously in defense of their freedom against illegal 
Russian aggression. As part of these efforts, the Biden 
Administration, in conjunction with U.S. allies and partners in 
NATO and around the world, have provided Ukraine with 
extraordinary levels of military, economic, humanitarian, and 
fulfilling the vast majority of Ukraine's military requests.
    Ukraine has asked for ATACMS to strengthen their fighting 
capabilities and allow them to strike military precise targets 
deeper inside occupied Ukraine territory. This resolution calls 
on the Administration to provide Ukraine with ATACMS, while 
still maintaining readiness of the U.S. military. And that is 
an important source of bipartisan agreement, that we do nothing 
in this effort to compromise our readiness as a country. And 
the expeditious provision of this system will undoubtedly 
provide the Ukrainian military with the deep strike capability 
they needed to further disrupt Russia's war fighting ability.
    This was a subject of compromise, the readiness component 
of this, so that we do not compromise our own inventory. It was 
critical in that regard.
    We also address some of the language, as was brought up, 
and concerns by my friend and colleague about the issue of 
whether this would be pivotal or not. In addressing that, we 
changed the language to more speculative in nature. So it was a 
product of compromise.
    I want to thank Chairman Kean for his work on this. And I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
    Second, I want to speak on H.R. 1150, the John Lewis Civil 
Rights Fellowship Act of 2023. This legislation, which passed 
the House of the last Congress, would establish a fellowship 
within the Fulbright program to promote a greater understanding 
of the history and tenets of non-violent civil rights 
movements. This fellowship would advance U.S. policy priorities 
globally and honor the legacy of the late Congressman John 
Lewis, whose 33 years in the House and his lifetime of public 
service moved our country forward in pursuit of a more perfect 
union.
    Again, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member 
for holding the markup, as well as the cooperation with 
Representative Kean. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any further discussion? Mr. Self is recognized.
    Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to emphasize something that Representative Kean 
mentioned. This, it neither authorizes nor appropriates 
additional funds for these weapon systems. Our citizens are 
sometimes confused when we send additional equipment and 
munitions to Ukraine, that this Congress has done that. We are 
not doing that in this bill. And it is not in this bill.
    As a longtime military planner, I have been advocating for 
ATACMS. But I also associate myself with Mr. Davidson's 
comments, because I am fundamentally opposed to Congress 
telling the military how to fight a war.
    But given the total incompetence of the Administration and 
their intransigence to send the appropriate equipment, if we 
are going to be in this war without a mission statement, 
without an end State stated, then I understand the frustration 
of my congressional colleagues to do this.
    But I want to emphasize the fact this neither authorizes 
nor appropriates additional funds to the Administration.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any further discussion?
    There being no further discussion of the resolution, the 
committee will move to consideration of amendments. Does any 
member wish to offer an amendment? Mr. Perry.
    Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I have got an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment. 
And the clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Perry follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.Res. 488, offered by Mr. Perry of 
Pennsylvania, page 3, line 2, strike provide and insert sell, 
page 3, line 7, strike transfer and insert sell.
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Perry. I thank the chairman for the opportunity.
    This is a pretty simple amendment. As you know, what we, 
our stock and trade up here is the things we say, the things 
that are written down. And they mean things. The language means 
something.
    When our founding documents say provide for the common 
defense, provide, that means we are going to make sure it 
happens and we are going to give, so to speak, the American 
people whatever it takes to defend them. And so in this 
circumstance, provide means something as well. The American 
taxpayer is going to provide Ukraine with the ATACMS.
    Now, I am not naive. America is involved in a lot of things 
where I think it is great when we are on the side of who we 
believe is right, the side of freedom, the side of liberty, 
against tyranny, against oppression.
    There are few people currently serving that can say that 
they have fought more against the oligarchal Russian regime 
once the Soviet Union, even on my own side, for the sake of 
Ukraine and against Vladimir Putin and against the tyranny of 
the Russian government against its people and its neighbors.
    There are very few people that have had the in-depth 
discussions with colleagues on my own side of the aisle about 
the Holodomor, the terror famine, that Russia promulgated 
against the people of Ukraine in the 1930's and how there are 
Russians living, ethnic Russians living in Ukraine now. Sure 
they are living there. The Ukrainians were murdered 
systematically. And the Russians moved into their empty houses. 
Sure they are there now.
    There have been few people in this organization that have 
stated more loudly that Ukraine should be able to enjoy its 
sovereign borders and should be able to make them whole, 
including Crimea.
    And again, I am not naive. If the United States is going to 
sell arms to our allies and friends and those who we like to be 
friends or make sure that they have them so that liberty 
prevails, so that freedom prevails, so that America's interests 
prevail, I am absolutely all for that. I am all for that.
    In this circumstance, I think it is obtuse to disregard the 
fact that we are $32 trillion in debt, borrowing every single 
day to pay our own bills, every single day, and within the last 
month have agreed essentially to say we are going to add in the 
next 18 months another $4 trillion in debt imposed on our 
American citizens, who are concerned about the sovereignty of 
our country as an invasion occurs on our borders, north and 
south now.
    While that occurs, we are seemingly more interested in 
something that is, you know, 5, 8,000 miles away. What is 
happening in Ukraine is important to the world. It is important 
to Ukraine. It is important to the United States of America.
    What is also important is the United States of America and 
our borders and our well-being and the fact that we need to be 
refocusing our efforts on the rising Communist Party of China 
and what they have in store for the United States of America 
and the free world.
    Now, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can help 
our friends in Ukraine and we can help ourselves. We are a 
force multiplier by the technology and the things we bring to 
bear in the armament industry. And it is awesome for America, 
and it is awesome for our allies. It is awesome. And it keeps 
us safe, and it keeps us peaceful because we have the 
provisions. We can push the button. We can make the decision at 
any time. And our adversaries know that.
    I am concerned. I do have a concern that these will be used 
to go into Russia. And, look, Russia certainly deserves it. 
They certainly deserve it from Ukraine. They certainly deserve 
it. That having been said, I do not think the American people 
signed up for a war with Russia. I do not think they signed up 
for that. And I think we ought to have a conversation about 
that.
    But that all having been said, all we are talking about is 
whether Ukraine gets the munitions they need to defend 
themselves and to regain their sovereignty and their freedom 
and their right to determine their own destiny. I support that. 
And I think that the EU and their neighbors in the neighborhood 
with the most at stake, other than Ukraine, should pony up and 
pay the bill. We will sell them to them, whatever they need, 
whatever we can produce, so that they can be successful. That 
is what this amendment does. And I urge adoption and support.
    And I thank the chairman. And I yield the balance.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Any further discussion? Mr. Hill is recognized.
    Mr. Hill. I thank the chairman. I appreciate the 
opportunity to speak on Mr. Kean's resolution on ATACMS. And I 
rise in reluctant opposition to my friend from Pennsylvania's 
amendment.
    I think it is true the American people did not sign up for 
war in Ukraine. But the American people have signed up since 
our Nation was born to support freedom and American interests. 
And we have seen that in president after president for 200 
years.
    And defeating Russia in Ukraine is fundamental to American 
freedom. And defeating, as the gentleman recognized, the 
militarization of the South China Sea is in our interest as 
well for the economic well-being of our families here at home.
    The Ukrainians are in the midst of their counteroffensive. 
And we have seen how effective modern artillery methods, like 
our HIMARs, can be used in their struggle against Putin's 
aggression.
    The House resolution that Mr. Kean has offered is important 
to get the Biden Administration to move more quickly, because 
that is the challenge here. The Administration has struggled 
with moving more quickly for 15 months. Even from the earliest 
days of Putin's rumored invasion and then subsequent to his 
illegal invasion, the Administration has drug their feet on 
increasing Ukraine's military capabilities. And I would say our 
European allies as well have drug their feet.
    And yet every time the United States and the West provide 
greater capabilities to the Ukrainian military, we see 
immediate success on the battlefield and retreat by Putin.
    Now, while I agree with my colleagues that they are 
concerned that the U.S. is doing too much and our other allied 
nations are doing too little, I share that view. And I have 
made that view consistently known for 15 months.
    As recently as last week, I met with the Treasury 
Department arguing they should encourage the allies to do more, 
do more like President Kishida, who announced $5.5 billion in 
support for Ukraine. There are many other countries that can do 
that level of support for buying weapons, for supporting 
Ukraine's budget, for supporting humanitarian purposes.
    There are countries that may not want to do military 
support financially, but they will support humanitarian 
efforts. And those are needed.
    And that is why yesterday I was delighted to read that the 
European Union, not known for speed and action, had agreed to 
set aside $55 billion in support for Ukraine over the next few 
years. We need to get them to do more than that. And this is 
not reconstruction money, Mr. Chairman. This is money to 
support the military and budget needs of Ukraine in this fight 
against Putin.
    So nothing in the resolution precludes the U.S. from 
selling Ukraine ATACMS. And I agree with my friend from 
Pennsylvania that where our military industrial strength can be 
used successfully to sell these weapons, whether it is to 
Taiwan or to Ukraine, we should do it. And they should pay us 
in hard currency for that.
    But it is in America's interest, in our citizens' interest, 
in our economy's interest to see Ukraine victorious and 
ejecting Putin from its sovereign United Nations recognized 
borders.
    And getting this material to the Ukrainians quickly should 
be the mission of this government and the mission of the 
government in Paris and the mission of the government in Bonn 
and in London, because we are foot dragging. We are foot 
dragging, Mr. Chairman. And that is why I want to take action 
on this committee to ensure that we take action quickly and 
quit delaying the defeat of Putin. Let's make this 
counteroffensive successful. Let's get Putin to the negotiating 
table. And let's get this war over in Europe.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Any further discussion? Mr. Keating, I'm sorry, Mr. Meeks 
is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I do not support this amendment. The process by which the 
United States provides Ukraine with military support that it 
needs is designed to be both efficient and effective. And we 
also know that the utmost oversight and accountability also 
goes into this process.
    By striking the word provide and inserting sell, this calls 
for a completely different process, one that takes longer and 
changes the nature of our support. This is not the intention of 
this bipartisan resolution in my opinion.
    The United States and our allies have remained unified in 
providing critical military support to Ukraine in its vital 
effort to ensure that Ukraine has the tools and capability it 
needs to push back Russia and for Ukraine to defend its 
sovereignty. So we must remain united in our approach.
    And this is what I think has been key to the 
Administration's approach, constant conversation with our 
allies, in NATO, the EU, and others, making sure that we are 
talking to one another and getting them the weapons that they 
need in unity. This is not just America alone, because we know 
to fight this evil that has been perpetuated by Russia and 
Vladimir Putin, it is something that we better do collectively 
for all, for democracy's sake, for sovereignty of territory's 
sake. And so we have got to do it in a manner that continues as 
unified but is efficient.
    And I think that is what this bill and that is what we are 
trying to do, because what we do know, that while Ukrainian 
soldiers are liberating towns and civilians as we speak, Russia 
is bombing towns and cities and killing civilians as we speak.
    So I am proud of the stance this committee has taken since 
the beginning of this horrific war of aggression and proudly 
will continue to support Ukraine in its fight for freedom and 
justice. And I think it is important, because all are looking 
at us, our allies, but also Vladimir Putin.
    He is waiting for us to say we have changed our minds and 
we are not going to stay together and we are not going to go 
through this for the long haul. That is what he counted on from 
the beginning. He counted on us not being unified in the West. 
He counted on us being different, separated. He thought that he 
could separate the United States of America from Germany and 
from France and from the U.K. and others. He has not succeeded. 
Now, they cannot stay together. And Congress will divide. We 
cannot do that.
    That is what I like about this, the bill. It keeps us 
together and speaks with one voice. And I would hope that we 
continue to support Ukraine in its fight for freedom and 
justice.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Any further discussion?
    Mr. Huizenga is recognized.
    Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I've got a couple of observations, and then, through you, 
Mr. Chairman, to the author of the amendment, I have a question 
that I want to give him an opportunity to respond to.
    And at first, I want to say, look, no one dismisses the 
problems on our southern border, at least, certainly, not on 
this side of the aisle. This is something that we have 
discussed and take very, very seriously about what has been 
going on.
    Nor do I believe many--certainly, and again, not on this 
side of the aisle that I've experienced--would deny the debt 
situation. You know, there are some debt deniers out there. I 
certainly am not one of those. I believe the vast majority of 
my colleagues are not.
    And it's true, a lot of aid and money and equipment has 
been sent to Ukraine. And this committee has taken some pains 
in making sure that audits have been done. We've had the 
auditors in front of--three or four of the various agencies--in 
front of this committee not that long ago. Because I think we 
owe it to the American people where their hard-earned tax 
dollars are going and what are the benefits of that.
    Frankly, Mr. Chairman, many of us had encouraged--and I 
know you are in this camp; I, certainly, was in this camp--we 
encouraged, cajoled, demanded that this Administration send 
equipment before the invasion, not waiting until the invasion. 
We wanted to have more equipment there to deter an invasion, 
and that did not--that did not happen.
    And I am very concerned, Mr. Chairman--and you and I are 
going to have to have this conversation of some things that 
I've been hearing offline. Over this weekend, I was in Europe, 
in Sweden, who is on the cusp of becoming a member of NATO. And 
that's a different story. But there was a group of us that were 
over in Stockholm having meetings with both the Swedes as well 
as representatives from the European Union, where this was a 
significant conversation.
    But some of those reports of U.S., potentially, U.S. 
Government officials not signing off on outside, non-
governmental aid going into Ukraine is very concerning.
    So, I say all that to assure the author of this amendment 
that he has sympathies; he has allies in his concerns. The 
question is, is the time and place and the spot in which to 
exercise that?
    And here's my question to my friend from Pennsylvania, the 
author of this amendment: is it your position that no 
additional money or aid, either military or humanitarian, 
should be forwarded to the Ukrainian cause at this point? Like 
enough has been sent? Or are you having an issue with this 
particular transfer?
    And I yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Perry. I thank the gentleman for the question and for 
yielding.
    I think it's important that we consider--I do not mean to 
say with undue scrutiny every single transaction or policy/
procedure that we're envisioning for Ukraine--but this is a lot 
of money. We're in debt, and I think that it's appropriate and 
justifiable to say, how much is this costing; who should be 
paying the bill? I think that Americans are probably more 
interested, more willing to pay--and I do not want to take up 
all your time--for humanitarian things, but when it comes to 
weaponry, I think that's a little sensitive because we have 
other--we have other priorities as well. And we've spent a lot. 
And it goes through the Pentagon, with all due respect, who 
cannot pass an audit, who just this week talked about billions 
of dollars that they cannot account for in Ukraine itself.
    Mr. Huizenga. Yes.
    Mr. Perry. And so, with all due respect to the ranking 
member about the oversight, Americans do not believe it; I do 
not believe it, and I think it's reasonable to ask them to 
pay--I do not know they cannot pay, but their neighbors can.
    And I yield.
    Mr. Huizenga. Reclaiming my time on that, and I saw the 
report as well about the accounting error that, then, 
discovered billions of dollars in additional money, which 
leaves nobody with a good feeling. And this is within our own 
government.
    But what I didn't hear is whether yes or no on that. And I 
guess I would just ask, you know, if not, why this particular 
issue? It seems to me that military equipment is fundamental at 
this point. If, yes, that we shouldn't be providing any 
additional aid or military equipment, that could be more 
problematic and it puts many of us in a difficult situation.
    So, reluctantly, I have to oppose the amendment as it's 
currently written. I've had similar thoughts about making sure 
that we have accountability in utilizing dollars that have been 
targeted and put into this already, but I'm not sure that this 
is the right place.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Any further discussion?
    Mr. Keating?
    Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I oppose this amendment. I'm curious why it would even be 
offered. Because we have, traditionally, been, as this 
resolution dictates, providing and transferring assets to 
Ukraine. We have been doing it through a drawdown, through the 
President, and we've done it through the Ukraine Security 
Assistance Initiative. That's the way we've done our funding 
for this. And I do not understand why this would deviate from 
that.
    But I would like to take issue with the comments that our 
allies aren't doing enough. As of May 23d of this year, the EU 
has put $78 billion in assistance to Ukraine, including 
financial, military, humanitarian, refugee assistance, or $18 
billion directly into military assistance. That's ammunition, 
air defense, Leopard tanks, fighter jets. And they have the 
largest military trainers of our personnel over there, too.
    So, do not sit here publicly--I do not think it's 
productive to the overall effort, and anyone shouldn't--and 
criticize that kind of cooperation, which is unprecedented. 
There's over 50 countries now working together with the United 
States and our allies to help Ukraine against this illegal, 
criminal war that Russia is conducting.
    I understand the concerns for our deficit, but where were 
those concerns--I didn't hear them voiced through any amendment 
in the process of a 2017 tax--I do not even know what it was 
called--modification, where over 80 percent of Americans didn't 
benefit from it at all. And that's over $2 trillion in our 
deficit now--approaching $3 trillion. So, be consistent with 
the deficit. Because, certainly, a tax change that benefits 
such a small number of Americans, as opposed to a fundamental 
security need that benefits all America, there's no question 
which side of the scale that should be on.
    So, I hope this amendment is defeated, and I hope we go on 
and work as we have. We're doing a great job working together. 
Every month, usually, in Germany, the Ukraine Defense Contact 
Group is getting together, all our allies, and they're looking 
at assets. They're cooperating together. They are sacrificing 
their own treasure to help a defense that not only benefits 
Ukraine, but benefits all of us. It's fundamental. We cannot 
lose this war.
    So, I hope this amendment is defeated. I hope we move 
forward in a bipartisan way to continue to support Ukraine. 
It's in our own self-interest.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Any further discussion?
    Mr. Kean is recognized.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I oppose this amendment. My resolution calls for the 
Administration to provide ATACMS to Ukraine immediately to 
hasten Ukraine's victory. This resolution, as written, does not 
preclude any means by which to provide these weapons. Biden 
could sell ATACMS to Ukraine. The President could approve a 
third-party transfer from allies and partners with ATACMS in 
their stocks. The President could use the billions remaining in 
drawdown authority to transfer some of the thousands of ATACMS 
in U.S. stocks.
    Instead, what this resolution does is pressure the 
Administration to finally provide this critical weapons system 
via any mechanism or mechanisms as soon as possible to hasten 
Ukraine's victory. Mr. Perry's amendment takes viable options 
on how to get ATACMS to Ukraine off the table and waters down 
the pressure on this Administration to stop slow-rolling 
provisions or the provision of ATACMS, which is prolonging this 
costly war.
    Mr. Perry's amendment also calls on U.S. allies and 
partners to sell, rather than transfer, similar systems to 
Ukraine. However, we have been pushing our European allies to 
do more to share the burden in supporting Ukraine.
    The Brits have stepped up and provided long-range Storm 
Shadow missiles, which have a similar range to ATACMS. The 
French are, reportedly, preparing to transfer SCALP long-range 
missiles to Ukraine as well.
    In the name of burden-sharing, I think it's critical that 
our European allies continue sending weapons to Ukraine from 
their stocks, as the United States has done. And Congress 
should call on them to do so.
    Finally, the draft of the Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense 
Authorization Act, which our HASC colleagues are marking up 
today, authorizes the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative to 
direct not less than $80 million for the procurement of ATACMS 
for the Ukrainian armed forces.
    It's necessary and essential--there are two or three 
committees in this body responsible for the American national 
security--are in unison on this matter.
    I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Any further discussion?
    Mr. Lieu is recognized.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I rise to oppose this amendment. There are three reasons 
why I chose to co-lead this excellent resolution by 
Representative Kean.
    First, I'm a strong believer in peace and diplomacy. I 
believe the fastest way to achieve peace is to convince 
Vladimir Putin that he cannot win militarily in Ukraine. Until 
he comes to that conclusion, he will continue the war in 
Ukraine.
    No. 2, I previously served on active duty in the United 
States military for a little over 4 years. I, then, served 21 
years in the reserves. I studied military history. And it's 
very clear to me that the side that wins in a war is a side 
that chooses to win.
    This is a war happening in Ukraine. And I'm very pleased 
that we are now starting to see NATO countries making the 
decision to support Ukraine, so that they can win. It is not 
enough simply to support the Ukrainians, so that they do not 
lose. Because the problem is there's a big risk, if we just do 
that, we will lose. Because the American public and our NATO 
allies are not going to be able to continue to sustain funding 
Ukraine year after year after year after year. The American 
public simply will not stand for that.
    So, we've got to make the decision to win. I'm pleased to 
see that the Biden Administration has now changed its stance on 
F-16s and allow training to go forward. Having served in the 
Air Force on active duty, I believe, frankly, it is insane to 
look at modern warfare and not say that air power is critical. 
Air power is critical, and I'm glad that NATO countries are 
finally coming around to that view.
    And then, the third reason that I support this resolution 
is because we're going to end up spending more money if Russia 
conquers Ukraine. Because at that point, we're going to spend a 
lot more money, then, funding every NATO country trying to make 
sure that Russia doesn't attack them next.
    And it's for those reasons I believe we need to give the 
Ukrainians the weapons they need to win. And frankly, it 
doesn't make any sense why we would give them HIMARS, and just 
because this system goes a little bit further, somehow we say, 
``Oh, there's some red line here that we cannot give this 
system to them.'' Of course, we can, and we should and we need 
to.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Any further discussion?
    Mr. Crow is recognized.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you, Chairman.
    I oppose this amendment for the reason that has been well-
articulated by my friends on both sides of the aisle. But I did 
want to take a moment to speak on the larger resolution for 
just a moment.
    My office did express our concerns in advance of the 
hearing. And I do not know what happened. I do not know why 
we're having the debate here. I won't speak to that.
    But I do believe that Chairman Kean has offered this in 
good faith. I agree with the vast majority of it. I think we're 
90 percent of the way there. I've been given a guarantee that 
you all will work with me to address some of my concerns and 
some of the wording, and I, certainly, believe that to be true.
    So, I'm going to change my vote. I will support it--with 
the understanding that we're going to negotiate and we'll, 
hopefully, get where we need to be before our floor vote as 
well.
    So, thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Any other members that seek recognition?
    [No response.]
    There being no further discussion, the question now occurs 
on the amendment offered by Mr. Perry, No. 225.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there any further amendments?
    [No response.]
    There being no further amendments, I move that the 
committee report H.Res. 488 to the House with a favorable 
recommendation.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the 
motion is agreed to.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    Staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming 
changes.
    The committee will recess. We will reconvene at 1 p.m. for 
a vote, so that we have all members present to participate in 
that vote. And that is 1 p.m., just before the votes are 
called, I believe, about 1:15.
    And with that, the committee is in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman McCaul. A quorum being present, the committee will 
come to order.
    The committee postponed further proceedings on reporting 
the measure en bloc, as amended, if amended, on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
    The question now occurs on reporting the measure en bloc, 
as amended, if amended, to the House with a favorable 
recommendation.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Representative Smith?
    Smith?
    [No response.]
    Representative Wilson?
    Wilson?
    [No response.]
    Representative Perry?
    Perry?
    [No response.]
    Representative Issa?
    Issa?
    [No response.]
    Representative Wagner?
    Mrs. Wagner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Wagner votes aye.
    Representative Mast?
    Mr. Mast. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mast votes aye.
    Representative Buck?
    Buck?
    [No response.]
    Representative Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Burchett votes aye.
    Representative Green?
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Green votes aye.
    Representative Barr?
    Mr. Barr. Aye.
    The Clerk. Barr votes aye.
    Representative Ronny Jackson?
    Jackson?
    [No response.]
    Representative Young Kim?
    Mrs. Kim of California. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kim votes aye.
    Representative Salazar?
    Salazar?
    [No response.]
    Representative Huizenga?
    Huizenga?
    [No response.]
    Representative Radewagen?
    Mrs. Radewagen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Radewagen votes aye.
    Representative Hill?
    Hill?
    [No response.]
    Representative Davidson?
    Mr. Davidson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Davidson votes aye.
    Representative Baird?
    Baird?
    [No response.]
    Representative Waltz?
    Waltz?
    [No response.]
    Representative Kean?
    Kean?
    [No response.]
    Representative Lawler?
    Mr. Lawler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Lawler votes aye.
    Representative Mills.
    Mr. Mills. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mills votes aye.
    Representative McCormick?
    Mr. McCormick. Aye.
    The Clerk. McCormick votes aye.
    Representative Moran?
    Mr. Moran. Aye.
    The Clerk. Moran votes aye.
    Representative James?
    James?
    [No response.]
    Representative Self?
    Mr. Self. Aye.
    The Clerk. Self votes aye.
    Ranking Member Meeks?
    Mr. Meeks. Aye.
    The Clerk. Meeks votes aye.
    Representative Sherman?
    Sherman?
    [No response.]
    Representative Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Connolly votes aye.
    Representative Keating?
    Mr. Keating. Aye.
    The Clerk. Keating votes aye.
    Representative Bera?
    Mr. Bera. Aye.
    The Clerk. Bera votes aye.
    Representative Castro?
    Castro?
    [No response.]
    Representative Titus.
    Ms. Titus. Aye.
    The Clerk. Titus votes aye.
    Representative Lieu?
    Mr. Lieu. Aye.
    The Clerk. Lieu votes aye.
    Representative Wild?
    Ms. Wild. Aye.
    The Clerk. Wild votes aye.
    Representative Phillips?
    Mr. Phillips. Aye.
    The Clerk. Phillips votes aye.
    Representative Allred?
    Mr. Allred. Aye.
    The Clerk. Allred votes aye.
    Representative Andy Kim?
    Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kim votes aye.
    Representative Jacobs?
    Jacobs?
    [No response.]
    Representative Manning?
    Ms. Manning. Aye.
    The Clerk. Manning votes aye.
    Representative Cherfilus-McCormick?
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. Aye.
    The Clerk. Cherfilus McCormick votes aye.
    Representative Stanton?
    Mr. Stanton. Aye.
    The Clerk. Stanton votes aye.
    Representative Dean?
    Ms. Dean. Aye.
    The Clerk. Dean votes aye.
    Representative Moskowitz?
    Moskowitz?
    [No response.]
    Representative Jonathan Jackson?
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
    Representative Kamlager-Dove?
    Kamlager-Dove?
    [No response.]
    Representative Costa?
    Costa?
    [No response.]
    Representative Crow?
    Mr. Crow. Aye.
    The Clerk. Crow votes aye.
    Representative Schneider?
    Mr. Schneider. Aye.
    The Clerk. Schneider votes aye.
    Chairman McCaul. How am I recorded?
    The chairman votes aye.
    Mr. Kean. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded? Congressman 
Kean.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kean?
    Mr. Kean. I vote aye.
    The Clerk. Kean votes aye.
    Mr. Huizenga. Huizenga. Unrecorded.
    The Clerk. Mr. Huizenga?
    Mr. Huizenga. Aye.
    The Clerk. Huizenga votes aye.
    Chairman McCaul. Have all members voted?
    Does any member wish to record or change their vote?
    [No response.]
    The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote, the ayes are 33 and the noes are 
zero.
    Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed 
to.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    Staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming 
changes.
    Pursuant to the previous order of the committee, each 
measure is ordered favorably reported, as amended, if amended, 
and each measure so amended shall be reported as a single 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    This concludes consideration of the measures noticed by the 
committee for today.
    And I want to thank all the members.
    There being no further business to transact, the committee 
stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:18 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                APPENDIX

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


         STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                      RECORDED VOTE FOR THE RECORD

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             MARKUP SUMMARY
                             
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 [all]