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




                                ------                                
                      MARKUP OF VARIOUS MEASURES

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

                                MARK UP

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               ----------                              

                             JULY 26, 2023

                               ----------                              

                           Serial No. 118-41

                               ----------                              

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs


       Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
                            docs.house.gov, 
                       or http://www.govinfo.gov
                       
                       

                       MARKUP OF VARIOUS MEASURES




                                 ______


 
                       MARKUP OF VARIOUS MEASURES

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

                                MARK UP

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 26, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-41

                               __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs


       Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
                            docs.house.gov, 
                       or http://www.govinfo.gov

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                   MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     GREGORY MEEKS, New York, 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                  AMI BERA, California
KEN BUCK, Colorado                   JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee             TED LIEU, California
ANDY BARR, Kentucky                  SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
YOUNG KIM, California                COLIN ALLRED, Texas
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida        ANDY KIM, New Jersey
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan              SARA JACOBS, California
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
    American Samoa                   SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK, 
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas                        Florida
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                GREG STANTON, Arizona
JIM BAIRD, Indiana                   MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida               JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
THOMAS KEAN, JR., New Jersey         JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York             SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
CORY MILLS, Florida                  JIM COSTA, California
RICH MCCORMICK, Georgia              JASON CROW, Colorado
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
JOHN JAMES, Michigan
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. 4619, the AUKUS Submarine Transfer Authorization Act........     2
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H. R. 4619 offered by 
  Mr. Huizenga...................................................    18
Amendment to H.R. 4619 offered by Mr. Waltz......................    35
H.R. 4716, the Keeping Our Allies Leading in Advancement Act.....    38
Amendment in the Nature of Substitute to H. R. 4716 offerd by 
  Mrs. Kim.......................................................    49
Amendment to H. R. 4716 offered by Mr. Meeks.....................    56
Amendment to H. R. 4716 offered by Mr. Waltz.....................    60
H.R. 4715, the Bilateral Resilience in Industry Trade Security 
  Act............................................................    63
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H. R. 4715 offered by 
  Mr. Kean.......................................................    73
Amendment to H. R. 4715 offered by Mr. Meeks.....................    81
H.R. 1456, the Stopping Communist Regimes From Engaging in Edits 
  Now Act........................................................    84
Amendment to H. R. 1456 offered by Mr. Sherman...................    97
Amendment to H. R. 1456 offered by Mr. Sherman...................   101
Amendment to H. R. 1456 offered by Mr. Sherman...................   105
Amendment to H. R. 1456 offered by Ms. Manning...................   109
Amendment to H. R. 1456 offered by Ms. Kamlager-Dove.............   112
Amendment to H. R. 1456 offered by Ms. Kamlager-Dove.............   117
H.R. 4725, the AUKUS Oversight and Accountability Act............   121
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H. R. 4725 offered by 
  Mr. McCaul.....................................................   137
H.R. 1776, the End Tuberculosis Now Act..........................   150
H.R. 4517, the Ensuring Voluntary Actions Are Compensated Act....   178
Material submitted for the record from Mr. McCaul................   184
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H. R. 4517 offered by 
  Mr. Davidson...................................................   187
H.R. 4741, the Securing Global Telecommunications Act............   196
H.R. 4691, the Iran Sanctions Relief Review Act..................   207
Amendment to H. R. 4691 offered by Mr. Meeks.....................   228
H.R. 3152, the Fight and Combat Rampant Iranian Missile Exports 
  Act............................................................   231
H.Res. 578, calling for the immediate release of Eyvin 
  Hernandez,a United States citizens and Los Angeles County 
  Public Defender, who was wrongfully detained by the Venezuelan 
  government in March 2022.......................................   250
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H. Res. 578 offered by 
  Ms. Kamlager-Dove..............................................   254
H.R. 4825, the No Illegal Oil from Russia Act of 2023............   262

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................   309
Hearing Minutes..................................................   311
Hearing Attendance...............................................   312

         STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY

Statement for the record from Representative Connolly............   313

                                 VOTES

Votes submitted for the record...................................   315

                   MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Materials submitted for the record from Mr. Kean.................   326
Materials submitted for the record from Mr. Davidson.............   328

                             MARKUP SUMMARY

Markup Summary...................................................   329


                       MARKUP OF VARIOUS MEASURES

                        Wednesday, July 26, 2023

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

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:22 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. 
4619, the AUKUS Submarine Transfer Authorization Act, H.R. 
4616, the Keeping Our Allies Leading in Advancement Act, H.R. 
4715, the Bilateral Resilience in Industry Trade Security Act, 
H.R. 4725, the AUKUS Oversight and Accountability Act, H.R. 
1776, the End Tuberculosis Now Act, H.R. 4517, the Ensuring 
Voluntary Actions Are Compensated Act, H.R. 1456, the Stopping 
Communist Regimes From Engaging in Edits Now Act, H.R. 4741, 
the Securing Global Telecommunications Act, H.R. 4691, the Iran 
Sanctions Relief Review Act, H.R. 3152, the Fight and Combat 
Rampant Iranian Missile Exports Act, H.Res. 578, calling for 
the immediate release of Eyvin Hernandez, a United States 
citizens and Los Angeles County Public Defender, who was 
wrongfully detained by the Venezuelan government in March 2022, 
and H.R. 4825, the No Illegal Oil from Russia 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 call up H.R. 4619, the AUKUS 
Submarine Transfer Authorization Act. The bill was circulated 
in advance. And the clerk shall designate the bill.
    [The Bill H.R. 4619 follows:]

                               H.R. 4619
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
                               
                               


    The Clerk. H.R. 4619, a bill to authorize the sale of 
Virginia Class submarines to Australia in support of the 
trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United 
Kingdom, and the United States, and for other purposes.
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading of 
the bill is dispensed with. The bill is considered as read and 
open to amendment at any point.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    This bill authorizes the transfer of two conventionally 
armed, nuclear powered Virginia Class submarines to Australia. 
The submarine sales authorized by this bill will not take place 
until 2030 at the earliest.
    By authorizing this transfer, we are taking the first step 
toward fulfilling an agreement with two of our closest allies, 
Australia and the United Kingdom. This will protect our 
national security and show the U.S. delivers on its 
commitments. This will strengthen a key regional ally and help 
increase our force readiness in the Pacific to counter the CCP.
    In return, we are gaining access to a critical resupply and 
refurbishment base that will help us keep more of our 
submarines on station in the Indo-Pacific for longer periods of 
time. This bill will also stimulate investment in our defense 
industrial base. We are also sending a clear message to the 
President and to industry that it is time to invest in our 
shipbuilding capabilities.
    This is a big step toward fulfilling the promise of the 
AUKUS agreement. But it is only the first step. A strong 
submarine industrial base is critical for the success of AUKUS 
and the future of our deterrents. With the Presidential 
certification requirements for the sale in this bill, we are 
sending a clear message to this Administration and industry 
that it is time to invest in our shipbuilding capability.
    This legislation also helps us bridge the gap in our 
shipbuilding capacity by reminding our allies and partners that 
America can and will follow through on its promises. We cannot 
let AUKUS become a paper tiger. We must show both our allies 
and enemies that we mean what we say, while we are also showing 
that we are serious about investing in a strong Navy. So I urge 
swift passage and adoption of this critical bill.
    Is there any other discussion on the bill? The ranking 
member, Mr. Meeks, is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, as the United States works with allies and 
partners to better compete with China and strengthen our 
alliance architecture, the Biden Administration's recently 
formulized trilateral security partnership with Australia and 
the United Kingdom, known as AUKUS, will be critical.
    AUKUS provides an important diplomatic and defense tool for 
cooperation by both increasing Australia's submarine welfare 
capability along with sharing defense technologies. As 
Secretary of State Blinken has stated, when it comes to 
Beijing, the United States will compete with confidence, 
cooperate where we can, and contest when and where we must, the 
AUKUS trilateral security framework as an integral component of 
this strategy.
    And I am proud to support Representative Huizenga's bill 
and thank him, and working along with him, along with the 
amendment I worked on with him, which provides important 
legislative authorization and direction for furthering the 
undersea capabilities within Pillar 1 of AUKUS.
    This bill provides for the transfer of U.S. Virginia Class 
submarines to Australia as part of the cooperative plan to 
bolster Australia's native posture as aging Collins Class 
submarines are retired and to work on the next generation AUKUS 
Class advanced submarines, which begins in years to come.
    The bill also provides certification criteria and reporting 
requirements to Congress so members have visibility on the 
process involved and to ensure it is consistent with the Biden 
Administration's pathway, ensuring there are no adverse impacts 
on our Navy or shipbuilding capacity.
    Finally, the bill includes necessary authorizations for 
repair and refurbishments and maintenance activities. So, as 
China continues its rapid military buildup, it is vital that we 
support AUKUS Pillar 1 with the legislative direction and 
authorizations to enable its success.
    I am glad to support this bill. And again, I thank 
Representative Huizenga and his staff for working with us. And 
so, therefore, I am glad to support this bill and the 
forthcoming amendment.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. Is there any further discussion on the 
bill?
    Mr. Huizenga is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to the ranking 
member, I appreciate our ability to work on this as well.
    The fact of the matter is that our maritime industrial base 
and our overall defense manufacturing base are not at a full 
capacity or capability and certainly not meeting our needs. 
However, this does not mean we should sit and wait for the 
Administration to act. The AUKUS Submarine Transfer 
Authorization Act begins the conversation to fully realize the 
potential benefits of the AUKUS trilateral security partnership 
between the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia.
    Deterrents, capabilities, and readiness are critical for 
future success in the Indo-Pacific region. This bill is an 
important step to get us there. This bipartisan solution 
provides the clearest signal to the Australians that this is 
not just another empty promise by someone or an Administration 
of any sort trying to just score political points on the 
international stage. By authorizing the sale of the first two 
Virginia Class conventionally armed, nuclear powered 
submarines, we are tackling the China issue head on.
    As China expands--sorry, Mr. Chairman. I believe your mic 
might be on. That is all right. As China expands as a maritime 
power, the focus should be on deterrents in what they call the 
South China Sea.
    In a 2018 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, then 
Commander Designate Phil Davidson testified that, ``China is 
now capable of controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios 
short of war with the United States.' ' As a result, it is 
imperative that we bolster our allies' efficiencies and defense 
capabilities if and when possible, the key phrase here being 
when it is possible and practical for the United States to do 
so and only when we are satisfied that our needs have been met 
first.
    It is no secret that the U.S. submarine industrial base has 
struggled for years of neglect and a lack of purchase from the 
Navy. Our current fleet of 49 attack submarines falls 
regrettably short of the service goal of 66. Our submarine 
industrial base can deliver approximately 1.3 Virginia Class 
submarines each year. And prior to the pandemic that number was 
closer to 1.9 per year, 1.3 per year currently.
    The indications that industry can deliver two Virginia 
Classes by the late 2020's are promising. And I have complete 
faith that they will hit that mark with our support coming out 
of the House of Representatives and the Senate. We should not 
shy away from these numbers. They are just facts.
    As such, the bill requires the Presidential level 
certification to have these issues be addressed. One, the 
transfer of such vessels will not degrade the U.S. undersea 
operational requirements. Two, the U.S. has the industrial 
capacity to meet and maintain the submarine production 
requirements needed to support the national security and 
operational requirements for its submarine fleet. Three, the 
U.S. has sufficient stockpiles of highly enriched uranium to 
meet the DoD needs. And then fourth, the government of 
Australia has the sovereign capability to host and operate 
these vessels. Furthermore, Congress reserves the power to 
issue a joint resolution of disapproval should the United 
States be unable to fulfill its side of the transfer.
    However, this bill serves as an opportunity for $3 billion 
of investment from the Australians into the submarine 
industrial base. In an industry hampered by supply chain 
shortages and work force disruptions, this investment will help 
ease the production and maintenance backlog that plagues our 
submarine forces, thus, jump-starting the future of our 
maritime fleet and putting us on track to hit our fleet goals.
    As we increase our shipbuilding capabilities over time, we 
must remind our allies and partners that America has and will 
continue to deliver on its promises in the face of Communist 
China. The AUKUS partnership brings about a new level of 
maritime operability in a region plagued by a growing malign of 
Chinese influence. According to the Wall Street Journal 
reporting, ``Beijing has become a dominant force in the South 
China Sea and has gradually changed both the geography and 
balance of power. ' '
    We have all seen the lengths of China, that the Chinese 
have gone to turn up the heat without breaking the threshold of 
a conflict. Just last year Chinese spy balloons traversed the 
entire continental United States. Also, there have been reports 
of listening buoys seen by Canadian forces in the Arctic. South 
China Sea is no different. The United States must not lose its 
focus on the reality of the threats posed by the Chinese 
Communist regime.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your 
leadership, the work that you have done on this to get the bill 
in its current form. We do anticipate offering an ANS as well.
    But let me close by offering this. Future cooperation and 
deterrents of Chinese incursion in the Indo-Pacific region 
hinges on the effort to bolster our regional allies and deliver 
on both pillars of the AUKUS partnership. So I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this common sense, bipartisan 
legislation.
    And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Any further discussion on the bill?
    There being no further discussion--oh, Mr. Waltz is 
recognized.
    Mr. Waltz. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman McCaul. It is an untimely request.
    Is there any further discussion on the bill?
    There being no further discussion on the bill, the 
committee will move to consideration of amendments. Does any 
member wish to offer an amendment?
    Mr. Huizenga is recognized.
    Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Yes, as you had stated and the ranking member had stated, 
there is an amendment in substitution, an ANS, offered. It is a 
bipartisan agreement.
    Chairman McCaul. Yes, the clerk shall distribute the 
amendment. And the clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Huizenga follows:]

  AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 4619 OFFERED BY MR. 
                                HUIZENGA
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
                                
                                

    The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
4619, offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan, strike all after the 
enacting clause and insert the following----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
    Mr. Huizenga. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will be very 
brief.
    As you had alluded to, as well as the ranking member, this 
is an ANS to address some technical concerns and some 
clarifications. Section 2 has clarifications on the findings of 
this language. Section 3, clarifications on the findings of the 
transfer with technical concerns surrounding maintenance and 
where that might be able to be done. Section 4 is authorizing a 
new submarine security activities account regarding the AUKUS 
agreement that will allow the transfer of dollars from the 
Australians into this account to then be used toward the 
development of these. And then, finally, there is the proper 
language for both the DoD and the Department of Energy to be 
involved and engaged, with a reporting requirement as part of 
that.
    So, with that, I would like to just say again, say thank 
you for the work and the cooperation that has been put forward. 
I do believe that this is an important statement.
    And again, as you had said, Mr. Chairman, this is not 
happening until at least 2030. It is my goal to make sure that 
we have an industrial base that is ready to be able to do that. 
But we do need to get these authorizations moving and put 
forward.
    And with that, I yield back the balance.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Let me say I support this amendment. Do any other members 
seek recognition?
    Mr. Meeks, the ranking member, is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I again want to thank Representative Huizenga and his staff 
and Republican committee staff for their work on this 
amendment, which I am proud to support.
    This amendment includes important additions and revisions 
to the underlying bill supporting AUKUS's submarine activities. 
One of the many changes included is an important structure 
whereby Australian financial contributions can be properly 
received, processed, and utilized by the United States for the 
benefit of greater shipbuilding capacity and achieving the 
goals of Pillar 1. It is through these generous contributions 
from Australia and the vital aims of bolstering our shared 
undersea defensive capabilities can be achieved and 
accelerated.
    Finally, the amendment includes critical reporting 
requirements to enable oversight and to such contributions and 
Pillar 1 programs and how they are used to accomplish our 
shared goals.
    Again, thank you, Representative Huizenga and your staff, 
for your collaboration on this important amendment.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Is there any, do any other members seek recognition? There 
being no further discussion, are there any further amendments 
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
    Mr. Waltz is recognized.
    Mr. Waltz. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Today I offer an amendment to, I think I have this right in 
terms of the timing, to H.R. 4619 that authorizes, as we have 
discussed, the transfer of two nuclear attack submarines to 
Australia. And I certainly want to say it has been very good 
work by you, Mr. Chairman, your team, the ranking member, and 
Mr. Huizenga and his team, and, of course, Chairwoman Kim.
    My amendment----
    Chairman McCaul. And the clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Waltz follows:]

              AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4619 OFFERED BY MR. WALTZ
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 4619, offered by Mr. Waltz of 
Florida, page 5 after line 12, insert the following and 
redesignate subsequent----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes on 
his amendment.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Essentially, to explain the amendment, it seeks to further 
address the problem that we have been discussing, which has 
been decades of under-investment in America's submarine 
industrial base that has led to the number of ready nuclear 
attack subs falling dangerously low. And just to reemphasize 
and pound this point, this is our final and most significant 
strategic advantage when it comes to deterring and countering 
the aggression of the Chinese Communist Party in the Pacific 
and around the world.
    And as Representative Huizenga has rightly noted, the Navy 
has for years asserted it requires 66 nuclear attack submarines 
for its warfighting requirements. We are currently at 49. That 
is about to fall to 46 as we phaseout the Los Angeles Class 
submarine. But I think an important point is 40 percent of 
those remaining are stuck in maintenance. They literally cannot 
get out of the yards.
    So I have real concern and would seek to strengthen the 
conditions that must be in place with any Administration and 
any future leaders in the Pentagon before we transfer these 
critical boats. I am concerned that at the end of the day we 
will find ourselves five, 10 years from now without a net 
increase from both the Australians and the United States.
    So this amendment would simply require the President 
certify the U.S. has the capacity to produce more than two 
Virginia Class submarines per year, which is what the 
President, the program of record in the President's budget 
request for Fiscal Year says is the baseline minimum for 
America to reach its warfighting goal of 66 boats.
    That said, Mr. Chairman, we continue to work consensus and 
language on this amendment. So I will withdraw it at this time 
and allow the proceedings to proceed.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman withdraws his amendment.
    Is there any further, are there any other further 
amendments on the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
    There being no further amendments, the question now occurs 
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
Representative Huizenga.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. And the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to.
    A roll call vote has been postponed. Oh, never mind.
    Mr. Meeks. I request a roll call vote.
    Chairman McCaul. OK. A roll call vote being requested. 
Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote and 
further proceedings on the bill will be postponed.
    There being no further amendments, I now call up H.R. 4716, 
the Keeping Our Allies Leading in Advancement Act.
    The bill was circulated in advance. The clerk shall 
designate the bill.
    [The Bill H.R. 4716 follows:]

                               H.R. 4716
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    The Clerk. H.R. 4716, to amend the Arms Export Control Act 
in support of Australia and the AUKUS partnership----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is 
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to 
amendment at any point.
    I now recognize myself for a very short opening statement.
    I want to followup on Mr. Waltz's comments. I think these 
submarines are probably, in terms of countering the CCP, the 
strongest thing that we have. And it is a delight to be working 
on this legislation to authorize Pillar 1 into law and also to 
exempt Pillar 2 from ITAR, which will speed up our defense 
industrial base and our ability to share these technologies 
with our allies in the region. And essentially taking the red 
tape away, this licensing exemption will add more submarine 
capabilities to the China Sea as we see a more aggressive China 
on the march.
    It also removes restrictions on innovation and 
collaborating on quantum computing, autonomous vehicles, long-
range weapons, including hypersonics, where we are behind, a 
key area of innovation outlined by the Administration in Pillar 
2. By removing outdated guidance outlined under Missile 
Technology Control, a regime of which Russia is also a member, 
we will ensure our enemies cannot use informal international 
bureaucracies to define the scope of our defense cooperation. 
We need to work together to get government inefficiencies out 
of the way of defense innovation and collaboration with our 
closest allies.
    Detractors will say that Australia does not have the 
defense export control system to protect our sensitive items. 
But we have never denied a sale or license to Australia. Our 
defense export control systems were built during the cold war, 
a time when the U.S. dominated innovation and defense 
technology. Times have changed. And we need to rely on our 
allies and partners, many of which out-innovate us in key 
areas, to help us counter our enemies.
    So, with that, I urge my colleagues to vote to pass this 
bill. It will send a signal to the Australians, that we mean 
what we say when it comes to AUKUS.
    Is there any further discussion on the bill?
    Mr. Meeks, the ranking member, is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you.
    I spoke about the importance of AUKUS to our shared defense 
and diplomatic goals. The Biden Administration has emphasized 
its investment in and focus on sharing advanced defense 
technologies with our AUKUS partners to enable closer 
cooperation. And I am strongly supportive of this goal, 
provided we pursue it with the appropriate and necessary 
protections. We pursue this goal while the PRC focuses 
significant personnel and resources on surveilling, stealing, 
capturing, or otherwise gaining an advantage over the United 
States and our allies.
    This measure removes the Arms Export Control Act 
established comparability standard that requires any country 
seeking to receive exemptions from licensing to demonstrate it 
has comparable defense trade controls to our own in place, that 
is the very controls that keep such defense technology advances 
and innovations safe.
    This standard is part of existing statutory requirements. 
And prematurely lifting them risk compromising our national 
security by allowing unfettered transfers of our most sensitive 
defense technology, including to private sector foreign firms, 
which risk exposure to or theft by our most capable 
adversaries, especially China. Both the State and Defense 
Departments oppose this approach, as do many of our Senate 
colleagues.
    My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may make this 
debate about the trust or faith we put into our two closest 
allies. But let me be clear. It is not that at all. As a 
longtime friend of both Australia and the U.K. and an avowed 
multilateralist, my commitment and respect for both of these 
close allies is clear. We do not doubt their commitment to 
AUKUS or to making vital improvements to their defense 
technology protections.
    Rather, it is because of our close relationship and wanting 
to ensure the success of this agreement and the promise it 
holds that we must ensure the high standards and protections of 
our sensitive defense technology, preserve our military 
advantage over our adversaries. These high standards, which are 
part of existing statute, are a reflection of our shared 
awareness that malign actors are intensively focused on 
acquiring our sensitive defense technology.
    Our own intelligence community has monitored and briefed 
members on such efforts. And Australia's own head of 
intelligence, Mike Burgess, stated publicly in February of this 
year more Australians are being targeted for espionage and 
foreign interference than at any time in Australia's history, 
more hostile foreign intelligence services, more spies, more 
targeting, and added specifically the targeting of Australian 
defense industry insiders and experts had increased since 
AUKUS's announcement. The U.K. faces similar intelligence 
threats.
    Recognizing the threats, in April 2023, Undersecretary of 
State Bonnie Jenkins sent a letter to both Australian and U.K. 
officials emphasizing the need to address specific defense 
regulatory and export control issues before proceeding to 
implementation with broad licensing exemptions. This work is 
still underway as we speak.
    If it is undermined by mandating premature exemptions, we 
risk making the very advances and innovations so important to 
competition with our adversaries vulnerable, to be stolen, 
transferred, or otherwise uncontrolled. In short, to provide 
for the success of AUKUS and for the promise of Pillar 2 to be 
fully realized and implemented, we must get it right, 
especially given the persistent and significant threat the PRC 
poses.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further discussion on the bill?
    Ms. Young Kim is recognized.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Chairman, for 
recognizing me. And I want to thank you for bringing up this 
legislation for consideration today. I also want to recognize 
the staff from the Australian embassy who are here today, who 
have worked side by side with the Foreign Affairs Committee on 
AUKUS related issues. I listened to the ranking member's 
concern. And I appreciate also your commitment to caucus.
    You know, this is the reason why we have introduced the 
bill. I strongly support my legislation. The Keeping Our Allies 
Leading in Advancement Act, KOALA--by the way, anyone who is 
interested, I do have some koalas for you to take. This 
legislation is the product of months of work, including hosting 
roundtables with defense industry experts and our Australian 
and British friends.
    In September 2021, the U.S., Australia, and the U.K. 
announced the creation of the trilateral security partnership 
called AUKUS. AUKUS seeks to strength the ability of each of 
our governments to support each other's defense interests, 
building on the longstanding trilateral security cooperation 
and intelligence sharing. The Pillar 2 of this agreement is for 
the development for an improvement of joint advanced military 
capability and interoperability.
    Our defense relationship with Australia is one of the 
strongest we have. We recently held the largest ever U.S./
Australia joint military exercise. And just a few days ago we 
commissioned the newest Independence-variant littoral combat 
ship, the USS Canberra, out of Sydney, Australia.
    Despite deepening defense ties, our Australians friends are 
facing significant bureaucratic barriers in working with our 
defense industry base and Department of Defense on critical 
technology transfers due to very strict International 
Trafficking in Arms Regulations, ITAR. Currently, these 
transfers can take between 90 to 100 days just to get the 
approval, despite the fact that in Australia's case these 
transfers are never denied.
    Further, ITAR compliance is costly and often discourages 
smaller companies that sell innovative technology from entering 
the defense contracting business. A small business simply 
cannot afford to front millions in compliance costs, which 
means we are losing out of an opportunity to incorporate more 
innovation in our defense ventures.
    The KOALA Act amends the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 to 
create a licensing and approval exemption under the Arms Export 
Control Act for Australia for the implementation of AUKUS. It 
also exempts Australia from meeting certain certification 
requirements for transfers of U.S. Government sales, grants, 
and/or commercial activities not specific to AUKUS.
    Further, the bill strengthens civil and criminal penalties 
under Section 38 and 39 of the Arms Export Control Act by 
increasing penalties from $1 million to $5 million and 
increasing the maximum criminal sentence from 20 years to 25 
years.
    Let's be clear about the purpose of AUKUS. This is about 
responding to increasing aggression from the People's Republic 
of China in the Indo-Pacific region. We are running out of time 
to adequately equip ourselves and our allies to respond to this 
aggression and to deter conflict. If we are to take this 
rapidly growing threat seriously, we must ensure that our arms 
exports process is expeditious for our closest allies, like 
Australia.
    I thank Chairman McCaul for leading this effort with me and 
for bringing this legislation up for consideration. And I urge 
a yes vote.
    And I yield the balance of my time.
    Oh, by the way, I would like to ask for unanimous consent 
to submit this letter featuring former Obama Administration 
officials calling for an expedited AUKUS process. And the 
letter was dated July 24, 2023.
    Chairman McCaul. And without objection, so ordered.
    The gentlelady yields back.
    Any further discussion on the bill?
    There being no further discussion on the bill, the 
committee will move to consideration of amendments. Does any 
member wish to offer an amendment?
    Ms. Young Kim is recognized.
    Mrs. Kim of California. I have an amendment in the nature 
of the substitute.
    Chairman McCaul. At the desk. The clerk shall distribute 
the amendment. And the clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mrs. Kim of California follows:]

 AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 4716 OFFERED BY MRS. 
                                  KIM
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
4716, offered by Mrs. Kim of California, strike all after the 
enacting clause----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    The gentlelady from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Kim of California. There are not too many technical 
changes. So I----
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
    I support this amendment.
    Do any other members seek recognition?
    Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you.
    This amendment clarifies that certain items adds an 
exceptions to the exception provided to licensing requirement 
so as to ensure certain items such as chemical, bio, and other 
particularly sensitive and dangerous technologies, including 
nuclear weapons, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and other 
such items. This makes sense, as these are among the most 
sensitive, destructive, and controlled weapons and technologies 
produced in the modern world. And they should not be eligible 
for or considered under license free, uncontrolled trade.
    Unfortunately, this amendment does not include other 
important changes. So I will be presenting another amendment 
addressing those areas. But I do support the gentlewoman's 
intent.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
    Mr. Waltz is recognized.
    Mr. Waltz. Mr. Chairman, I have a revised amendment to the 
ANS. I do not know if that is the right time.
    Chairman McCaul. Yes, we are on discussion of the Young 
Kim----
    Mr. Waltz. OK.
    Chairman McCaul [continuing]. Amendment at this time. But I 
will, we will get back to you when it is timely.
    Any further discussion on the Young Kim amendment in the 
nature of a substitute?
    There being no further discussion, are there any further 
amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
    Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Chairman.
    This amendment--I have an amendment----
    Chairman McCaul. Amendment at the desk. The clerk shall 
distribute the amendment.
    We have to go back to, you know, Legislation 101 here.
    OK. The clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Meeks follows:]

              AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4716 OFFERED BY MR. MEEKS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 4716, offered by Mr. Meeks of 
New York, page 3, line 2, strike shall and insert may----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Chairman.
    This amendment modifies the underlying bill by ensuring the 
Secretary of State certifies to Congress that the recipient 
country, in this case Australia, has defense technology trade 
controls and safeguards, as originally required by the Arms 
Export Control Act, in place to protect against our 
adversaries.
    When the PRC's aggressive attempts to steal the most 
sensitive defense technologies so that they can be copied and 
used against us are as pernicious and devious as they are, it 
is vital we ensure our allies have the strongest level of 
controls and safeguards in place before we proceed with broader 
exemptions and license free transfers.
    This amendment provides for the Secretary of State to 
implement an exemption under the Arms Export Control Act, 
Section 38(j), for license free defense trade activities once 
the appropriate safeguards are in place and certified to 
Congress.
    Both the Defense Department and the State Department 
support this amendment, which strikes the appropriate balance. 
As Australia's own intelligence head said, Mike Burgess, AUKUS 
secrets are a target for spies and those looking to exploit 
cutting edge security advancements. It is for these reasons 
that while streamlined export processes are necessary so that 
we can have success of the AUKUS trilateral partnership, so too 
is the effective protection of sensitive technologies.
    And given the threats our adversaries pose, we must support 
this partnership, but we also must get it right. Therefore, I 
urge my colleagues to support this critical amendment so that 
we can ensure that we get it right. Thank you.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
    Mrs. Kim of California. Chairman, I would like to speak in 
opposition.
    Chairman McCaul. Yes, Young Kim is recognized.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Chairman.
    To the concerns the Ranking Member Meeks raised, I do want 
to appreciate his thoughts. But I just want to talk about the 
concerns that he raised about, you know, this technology 
falling into the hands of the adversaries, in this case CCP.
    Australia is one of our closest allies and is one of our 
Five Eyes partners. We let the Australians have access to some 
of the most sensitive intelligence we have. So why shouldn't we 
expedite collaboration with them on sensitive technologies? I 
think it is a disservice to grant them access to some of our 
most sensitive intelligence by saying we are concerned that the 
Australians will let this technology fall into the hands of the 
CCP. It is not consistent.
    You know, the certification proposed by the ranking member 
is exactly what we already have. And it is not working. State 
will not certify. State has shown that it will never certify 
Australia for an exemption because it does not want to give up 
bureaucratic power over licensing. In 50 years, State has only 
certified that one country has been certified by State, and 
that is Canada.
    As Five Eyes allies, the United States and Australia have 
already shared much of our country's most sensitive 
intelligence. That quote is from bipartisan group of former 
defense officials, including James Clapper, Chuck Hagel, and 
Michelle Flournoy, who all agree that Australia has sufficient 
safeguards in place.
    So we give licenses to Chinese companies to gain access to 
our technology at alarming rates. But State will not give a 
licensing exemption to the U.K. or Australia for technology we 
are already selling to them? We know the State certification 
requirement does not work. We need something new. Thank you.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
    Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
    Mr. Kim is recognized.
    Mr. Kim of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Good morning. I am happy to speak in support of Ranking 
Member Meeks' amendment to H.R. 4716. This bill would 
preemptively exempt certain allies from important defense tech 
controls and licensing requirements currently enshrined in the 
Arms Export Control Act and remove the comparability standards 
we have in statute today.
    Prematurely lifting these standards would risk compromising 
our national security by allowing unfettered transfers of our 
most sensitive defense technology. That includes transfers to 
private sector foreign firms, which risk exposure to and theft 
by our adversaries. We should broaden and deepen our security 
cooperations with our allies and ensure that the appropriate 
defense regulations are in place to move forward with 
cooperation.
    In April 2023, Undersecretary of State Bonnie Jenkins sent 
a letter to some of our allies emphasizing the need to address 
specific defense regulatory issues before implementing broad 
licensing exemptions. This work is still underway. And recent 
reports underscore the importance of getting this right. As we 
work collectively with our allies to counter increased 
espionage efforts by sophisticated adversaries is incredibly 
important to protect the transfer of our most sensitive 
information and technologies.
    These common sense controls included in Ranking Member 
Meeks' amendment will reinforce our national security and 
protect Americans at home and abroad. Thank you.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
    Let me say I oppose this amendment. Some of these points 
have already been made by Ms. Young Kim. But the may exempt as 
proposed by the ranking member is exactly what we have done. 
And it is not working. That is the status quo. State will not 
issue the exemption. That is the problem. State has not, has 
shown that it will never certify Australia or the U.K. foreign 
exemption because it does not want to give up its bureaucratic 
power over licensing. In the 50 years, only one country has 
been granted an exemption by State, and that is Canada.
    As Five Eyes allies, the United States and Australia have 
already shared much of each country's most sensitive 
intelligence already. And that quote is from the bipartisan 
group of former defense officials, including James Clapper, 
Chuck Hagel, and Michelle Flournoy, who all agreed that 
Australia has sufficient safeguards in place.
    Also, I would say that ITAR licensing regime is outdated 
and overburdensome. And that is why we are doing this 
legislation. But to go back to the may exempt will just put us 
right back square where we are in the status quo.
    The industry national security professionals agree. They 
say we need a full exemption from ITAR licensing for both 
Australia and the U.K., because currently these requirements 
cause dangerous delays sending critical equipment to our 
closest allies and hurt our collective defense industrial base, 
and they threaten our technology advantage over China.
    The time of delays is over. This bill is to move forward 
with the strong alliance we have called AUKUS with Australia 
and the United Kingdom, treating them both equally as allies of 
the United States, equally willing and able to share our 
technology and our capabilities to further counter the malign 
influence that we see coming from Communist China in the 
region. And that is why this bill is so important. And that is 
why I oppose this amendment, although I have tremendous respect 
for the ranking member.
    Do any other members seek recognition on the amendment to 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
    Mr. Waltz is recognized.
    Mr. Waltz. I have a revised amendment to the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
    Chairman McCaul. We need to dispose with the Meeks 
amendment----
    Mr. Waltz. OK.
    Chairman McCaul [continuing]. First.
    There being no further discussion, the question now occurs 
on the amendment offered by Representative Meeks.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Roll call vote has been requested. Pursuant to the chair's 
previous announcement, this vote will be postponed.
    Are there any further amendments? Mr. Waltz, you are 
recognized.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a 
revised amendment to the ANS.
    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment. 
And the clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Waltz follows:]

               AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4716 OFFERD BY MR. WALTZ
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 4716, offered by Mr. Waltz of 
Florida----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes on 
his amendment.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am offering an amendment to task the State Department to 
report upon the application of the concept offered up here by 
you, Mr. Chairman, and Representative Kim to study and report 
on the application of that concept with our other allies in 
Asia, namely Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and 
Thailand. Virtually all of our allies and partner countries in 
Asia now face a very serious national security threat from the 
Chinese Communist Party. AUKUS is, indeed, a major step toward 
deterring and protecting against that threat.
    My colleague's bill represents an innovative approach to 
implement Pillar 2 of the AUKUS agreement, long overdue in my 
opinion. The Administration should take seriously its potential 
as a future end goal for military sales to a number of our 
closest allies.
    The House Foreign Affairs Committee's FMS, Foreign Military 
Sales Task Force is working toward a comprehensive solution to 
improve upon our weapons sales backlogs. State's experience 
with AUKUS and the implementation contained in this bill would 
be absolutely critical. I do look forward to State's feedback 
on how we could potentially widen the circle of AUKUS and the 
measures in this legislation in the future.
    And I do want to thank Chairwoman Kim for her leadership in 
this legislation, as well as the Indo-Pacific Subcommittee. And 
their work has been critical in advancing America's interests 
in Asia and deepening the bonds with our regional partners and 
allies.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Let me say I support this amendment.
    Do any other members seek recognition?
    Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Connolly is recognized.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I support the legislation, but a word of caution. We had a 
hearing, and we talked about Australian military capability. 
And it needs--there is plenty of room for improvement. Let's 
put it that way. And if we are going to rely on Australia as a 
key strategic partner in the region, we got to make sure that 
they have the capability they need to be able to perform that 
role. And so I just, a word of caution to my colleagues. It is 
worth paying attention to.
    We want a strong Australia. We love the relationship. The 
partnership is really important. But we also cannot turn a 
blind eye to the fact that there has been a degradation in 
capability that has to be remediated.
    With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any further discussion?
    There being no further discussion, the question now occurs 
on the amendment offered by Representative Waltz, No. 86.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. And the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Further proceedings of this bill are postponed.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 4715, the Bilateral 
Resilience in Industry Trade Security Act. The bill was 
circulated in advance. The clerk shall designate the bill.
    [The Bill H.R. 4715 follows:]

                               H.R. 4715
                               
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    The Clerk. H.R. 4715, to amend the Arms Export Control Act 
in support of the United Kingdom and the AUKUS partnership.
    Chairman McCaul. And without objection, the first reading 
of the bill is dispensed with. And the bill is considered as 
read and open to amendment at any point.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    In 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Prime 
Minister Winston Churchill agreed to the Atlantic Charter as we 
fought side by side in World War II. The charter focused on 
non-aggression, self-determination, and open trade.
    In June 2021, the President and then Prime Minister Boris 
Johnson revitalized the Atlantic Charter to address our current 
challenges in the new era of strategic competition. During the 
U.K. Prime Minister Sunak's visit last month, we heard him 
speak on our shared priority of protecting national security 
and an identified AUKUS as, ``the most significant defense 
partnership in generations.' '
    President Biden stood alongside Prime Minister Sunak and 
Prime Minister Albanese at Point Loma Naval Base, San Diego, 
California 4 months ago saying, ``We are putting ourselves in 
the strongest possible position to navigate the challenges of 
today and tomorrow together.' '
    But we know proclamations mean nothing without action. And 
that is why AUKUS is critical and needs to be implemented to 
preserve regional stability and peace in the Indo-Pacific. The 
strongest possible position is to remove bureaucracy when it is 
unnecessary. And this bill does just that. Despite what 
concerns State has, have never denied a single license for the 
U.K. So, with that, I urge all my colleagues to vote to pass 
this bill.
    And I yield the balance of my time.
    Is there any further discussion on the bill?
    The ranking member, Mr. Meeks, is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you.
    I spoke earlier on Rep. Kim's bill, which seeks to 
implement similar exemptions to Rep. Kean's bill. My comments 
are similar. So I will be very brief.
    Again, I strongly support the AUKUS agreement, including 
Pillar 1 on undersea capabilities, as well as Pillar 2, which 
aims to further our shared efforts on advanced defense 
technology cooperation. However, similar to Rep. Kim's bill, 
this proposal also preemptively exempts the United Kingdom from 
important defense tech controls and licensing requirements and 
removes the established comparability standard that requires 
any country seeking to receive exemptions from licensing to 
demonstrate it has comparable defense trade controls to our own 
in place, that is, removing the requirement for the very 
controls that keep such advances and innovations safe.
    And I hear my colleagues talking about how we do 
intelligence sharing. That is correct. But intelligence sharing 
is different than preserving sensitive defensive technologies, 
two different things.
    And also, as with the previous bill, both the State and 
Defense Departments oppose this approach, as do many of our 
Senate colleagues.
    And I will again underscore that this, as I have said 
before, is not about the faith or views we have for our closest 
allies. Those are not in question. It is because of our close 
relationship and wanting to ensure the success of this 
agreement and the promise it holds that we must ensure the high 
standards and protections of our sensitive defense technology 
to preserve our military advantage over our adversaries.
    Therefore, as with the previous bill, which similarly 
removes the requirement for certification and assurances that a 
recipient country that has the full range of proper safeguards 
and controls in place to receive license free treatment via 
bespoken exemption. So I must oppose the preemptive approach. 
These high standards which this bill circumvents are part of 
existing statute, and they are not anything new.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further discussion on the bill?
    Mr. Kean is recognized.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for your 
support of this bill and your extraordinary leadership on this 
issue.
    On September 15, 2021, the AUKUS agreement was signed by 
the government of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United 
States as a once in a generation security pact. Under this 
agreement, Australia would receive United States Virginia Class 
attack submarines, while working with the U.K. to develop a 
domestic nuclear submarine fleet under the auspice of Pillar 1. 
But what is most important is the trilateral cooperation on 
advanced technologies and capabilities such as quantum, 
advanced electronics, and hypersonics. This is the crux of the 
agreement found in AUKUS Pillar 2.
    It is a known fact that our country's ITAR and arms export 
systems are dated back to the cold war, a time when the United 
States was at the technological apex of defense innovations and 
production. I firmly believe that our Nation continues to lead 
in innovation. And our military equipment is sought after 
across the world by our allies and our partners.
    However, we can no longer live in times of the cold war 
when we have to contend with one adversary. The threat of the 
CCP's rapid rise in the Indo-Pacific and its menacing behavior 
toward allies and partners such as Taiwan requires that we 
develop advanced capabilities to counter that risk.
    My legislation gives the United Kingdom a full ITAR 
exemption so that there can be a true free flow of technologies 
and information between our two countries in advance of 
realizing the true potential of AUKUS. By allowing this, 
defense equipment and technology transfers can be exempt from 
multitudes of bureaucratic red tape, allowing for expedient 
transfers of ideas and hardware.
    We would be saving our allies precious time and money they 
could use toward building up their collective defense. It would 
reduce bureaucracy, making government more efficient. It would 
give industry the certainty they need to collaborate with our 
allies.
    AUKUS is a unique opportunity to establish a collaborative 
effort between the United States and some of its closest 
partners to develop the next generation of defense systems and 
to reestablish our edge over our adversaries.
    I would like to again thank the chairman for his co-leading 
of this legislation, as well as Ms. Kim of California, Mr. 
Huizenga of Michigan, as well as the other members of this 
committee who have since co-sponsored this bill. I urge this 
committee to favorably pass this legislation and the rest of 
the AUKUS package.
    I yield back my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further discussion on the bill?
    There being no further discussion on the bill, the 
committee will move to consideration of amendments. Does any 
member wish to offer an amendment?
    Mr. Kean is recognized.
    Mr. Kean. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am submitting an 
ANS, which is a simple and technical----
    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall report, distribute the 
amendment, sorry. OK. The clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Kean follows:]

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSITUTE TO H.R. 4715 OFFERED BY MR. KEAN
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    The Clerk. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 
4715, offered by Mr. Kean of New Jersey, strike----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a simple and 
straightforward technical amendment.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Any further discussion on the amendment?
    There being no further discussion, are there any further 
amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
    Mr. Meeks----
    Mr. Meeks. Amendment at the desk.
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Meeks, the ranking member, is 
recognized.
    He has an amendment at the desk. The clerk shall distribute 
the amendment. The clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Meeks follows:]

              AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4715 OFFERED BY MR. MEEKS
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3244.207

    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 4715, offered by Mr. Meeks of 
New York, page 3, line 3, strike shall and insert may----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
    Mr. Meeks. I support the gentleman's amendment even though 
it does not address the full range of concerns I have, which is 
why I am offering a separate amendment with further 
modifications.
    On this amendment and the changes it makes, I do support 
the inclusion of further specificity on what items must be 
excluded from such a licensing exemption.
    This amendment clarifies or modifies the underlying bill by 
ensuring that the Secretary of State certifies to Congress that 
the recipient country, in this case the United Kingdom, has 
defense technology trade controls and safeguards as originally 
required by the Arms Export Control Act in place to protect our 
most sensitive technologies from theft by our adversaries.
    Just this month, our counterparts in the United--in the 
U.K. House of Commons Intelligence and Security Committee 
issued a public report stating the PRC's intelligence services 
are prolifically and aggressively targeting the U.K. and 
highlighted the still-developing approach to monitoring and 
regulating sensitive and emerging security technologies 
compared to the architecture in place in the United States.
    As the Biden Administration continues to advise the U.K. on 
such matters, it is vital we ensure our allies have a robust 
level of controls and safeguards in place before we proceed 
with broader exemptions and license-free transfers. In that 
vein, this amendment simply requires the Secretary of State to 
implement an exemption under the Arms Control Act Section 38J 
for license-free defense trade activities once the appropriate 
safeguards are in place and certified to Congress.
    Similar to my previous amendment, both the Defense 
Department and State Department support this amendment. In 
short, given the important work still underway to address these 
areas and the threats our adversaries pose, we must support 
this partnership and get it right. And therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to support this critical amendment to ensure that we 
do just that.
    And I yield back my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Let me say, I oppose this amendment. Do any other members 
seek recognition?
    Mr. Kean is recognized.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also oppose this 
amendment. This amendment simply put in the continued roadblock 
that currently exists in the export control system, in the ITAR 
ecosystem.
    The United Kingdom has never been denied an export license 
for noncompliance or any other wrongdoing. The U.K. is a member 
of Five Eyes, which is an intelligence-sharing pact between the 
United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and New 
Zealand. The U.K. has also recently enacted laws, such as the 
National Security Investment Act, to modernize government's 
powers to scrutinize and to intervene in investments and other 
acquisitions to protect our national security.
    The U.K. is the only nation outside of the United States to 
field the Tomahawk missile. It took the U.S. 7 months to 
approve the U.K. to receive information on the latest upgrade 
to the system. It took a further 10 months on the approval of 
the maritime version of this system.
    ITAR, we transfer approvals required--you know, required 
from the State Department to allow U.K. contractors to work on 
multiple systems on U.K. Vanguard class ballistic missile 
submarines have resulted in 3-month delays, affecting the 
operation ability of his nuclear deterrent.
    And, Mr. Chairman, if I may for the record also submit a 
letter from Eric Fanning, who is the President and CEO of the 
Aerospace Industries Association. He submitted it, and his 
quote. ``This legislation, the overall package, requires a 
modern defense trade system with clearly defined standards that 
allow industry and foreign partners to jointly plan, produce, 
and acquire strategic and advanced capabilities.''
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Kean. And the foreign military sales and direct 
commercial sales exemptions specific each partner under the 
ITAR and the BRITS and KOALA Act are imperative to the 
operational success of AUKUS partnership. Extraordinarily 
important we get the bureaucratic delays out and ensure that we 
can combat China and other opponents across the globe.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Any further discussion on the amendment?
    There being no further discussion, the question now occurs 
on the amendment offered by Representative, the ranking member, 
Meeks.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed 
signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to. A recorded vote has been requested 
pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will 
be postponed.
    Are there any further amendments?
    Further proceedings of this bill are postponed.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 1456, the Stopping 
Communist Regimes from Engaging in the Edits Now Act. The bill 
was circulated in advance. The clerk shall designate the bill.
    [The Bill H.R. 1456 follows:]

                               H.R. 1456
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
                               

    The Clerk. H.R. 1456, to limit the use of funds for the 
production of films using assets for the Department of State 
under the certain circumstances, and for other purposes. Be it 
enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America and Congress assembled, this act may 
be cited----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading of 
the bill is dispensed with. The bill is considered read and 
open to amendment at any point.
    Let me say, I support this bill. Is there any further 
discussion on the bill?
    Mr. Green is recognized.
    Mr. Green. Thank you, Chairman McCaul and ranking member, 
for holding this markup.
    Mr. Chairman, tyranny has no respect for borders. The 
Chinese Communist Party is exporting its totalitarian 
censorship to Hollywood, demanding America's film industry be 
complicit in its malign agenda. The CCP has one goal: silence 
any voice that threatens its illegal, inhumane, and genocidal 
activity.
    Rather than standing up for American values, many high-
budget films choose to edit out so-called offensive scenes. In 
one instance, the CCP told Sony to edit out an image of the 
Statue of Liberty in the movie ``Spider-Man: No Way Home.'' 
Fortunately, Sony refused.
    American liberty is not for sale. Unfortunately, not all 
Hollywood executives feel that way, as some, and I reiterate 
some, have been willing to put profit above patriotism. Yet 
many of these same studios get assistance from the U.S. 
Government during film production. Via production assistance 
agreements, some studios gain access to invaluable assistance 
from the Federal Government, often from the Department of 
State.
    To then have these studios turn around and spread CCP 
propaganda or kowtow to Beijing censorship is unacceptable. 
Congress must put an end to this. That is why I reintroduced 
the Stopping Communist Regimes from Engaging in Edits Now Act, 
or SCREEN ACT, this Congress.
    The SCREEN Act prevents the Federal Government from 
assisting studios in Hollywood with the production of a film if 
that film is co-produced by a Chinese company and requires film 
companies receiving production assistance from the Department 
of State to report to Congress previous films that have been 
substantially edited by the Chinese Communist Party. And it 
bans the Federal Government from assisting these studios if 
they have edited a film for the CCP.
    Last, this bill requires Hollywood studios to provide 
written agreements pledging not to censor their own films at 
the request of the CCP prior to receiving any assets or 
technical assistance from the Department of State. Censorship 
at the behest of a dictatorial, human-rights-violating regime 
is bad enough. U.S. tax dollars funding that censorship is an 
outrage.
    Thankfully, the Pentagon, under the leadership of Secretary 
Austin and thus President Biden, recently announced that the 
DoD will no longer work with film studios that censor their 
movies on behalf of the CCP. The DoD gets it. The Pentagon's 
new rule is a great step forward, but we need to start 
codifying these protections in law.
    The Department of State must not spend a single taxpayer 
dollar helping studios that do Beijing's bidding. Imagine what 
American classics would have become if they had required the 
approval of Xi Jinping. Can you imagine the CCP's stamp of 
approval on ``The Godfather,'' ``Casablanca,'' ``Forrest 
Gump,`` ``Saving Private Ryan''?
    Our film history is part of our national culture, and we 
cannot let it be watered down or manipulated by Communist 
regimes. This bill counters the CCP's blatant attack on 
American culture by demanding transparency and accountability.
    I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in 
favor of this amendment and to unequivocally show our 
constituents that we will not subsidize censorship. Let's show 
the CCP that American movies cannot be twisted to serve the 
CCP's interests.
    I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Is there any 
further discussion on the bill?
    Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. I strongly oppose this measure. One, it is 
overbroad. And two, it would be completely counterproductive to 
the United States' interests.
    My colleagues often speak about how we need to compete with 
and counter China. So this effort to undermine one of our key 
strengths in the competition with China, our soft power--
undermining our soft power I find completely puzzling.
    Our strategic competition with China is multifaceted. And 
the PRC is intent to compete with us on soft power as well. In 
2007, the PRC President, Hu Jintao, urged his cadres in the 
17th National Congress to stimulate the cultural creativity of 
the whole nation and enhance culture as part of the soft power 
of our country.
    Since then, Xi Jinping has talked about showcasing, and I 
quote, ``cultural confidence,'' as Beijing has poured in 
billions of dollars into State-owned media outlets, cultural 
and language centers, and public diplomacy. And while Beijing 
is busy competing, this measure attempts to hinder one of our 
greatest strengths, our greatest strengths.
    One of the implicit reasons that the world looks to the 
United States in a very favorable way is because of our values, 
which reverberate throughout the world thanks to the spread of 
American music, social media, literature, art, and Hollywood. I 
think it is critical that kids around the world are watching 
``Mission: Impossible'' and ``Spider-Man.''
    It is in our interest that these movies showcase the 
American military's might, the glory of our national parks, the 
free press, all of which would be undone by this measure. We 
should strengthen our soft power, not cutting off funding for 
all U.S. studios that simply have shown or want to show their 
movies in China.
    This measure will impact every major U.S. film studio and 
hurt the thousands of middle-class American workers that are 
employed by Hollywood, as well as their families. This measure 
helps the CCP achieve exactly what it wants, cutting its 
citizens off from the outside world and having them watch 
``Wolf Warrior 2'' instead of ``Captain America.''
    Why would we aid the CCP in its goal of removing America's 
cultural influence on its people by urging Hollywood to stop 
showing its films in China? Makes no sense. And that is why--
well, let's think about why would we? Why would we not want to 
actively support and aid an industry that is sharing American 
stories with the people of China?
    Now, there are legitimate concerns around censorship of 
U.S. films that we need to monitor and address. But, my 
friends, this is not the way to do it. This is bad policy, 
undermining a key element of U.S. soft power. The vast gains we 
get from having American movies shown in China require that we 
handle this issue reasonably. Therefore, I strongly oppose this 
measure and urge my colleagues to do the same.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Any further 
discussion on the bill?
    Mr. Mast is recognized.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman.
    I am going to just--I am going to yield some time to my 
friend Mr. Green here in a moment, but I just want to start by 
taking the last comments that were made.
    You know, at the detriment of the movie industry, we cannot 
push that they undertake things where they wouldn't want to be 
shown in China. Imagine if that was the attitude we had during 
the cold war, right, where we couldn't have the villain Drago 
in ``Rocky IV'' because they wouldn't show it in Russia, or you 
couldn't have, you know, funny movies like ``Spies Like Us.'' 
You couldn't have the adversaries be the Russians, or all the 
James Bond movies, the adversaries couldn't be the Russians. Or 
you couldn't have ``Dr. Strangelove'' or ``The Hunt for Red 
October,'' or take any of those.
    If that was the rationale for--``Well, listen. We do not 
want to cross them in this way. We do not want to push them in 
this way, because what if they couldn't show those movies in 
Moscow?'' That is essentially the argument that is being made 
here.
    We want a robust American film industry, but we want one 
where art can reflect truly what life is. That is the order of 
the old philosophical question, which one reflects which one? 
But these studios are not allowing their art to truly reflect 
what is going on in life and specifically what is going on with 
who we are essentially in a new cold war with, which is China, 
and what their actions are around the globe in so many 
different places.
    And I am going to yield some time to my friend Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. I thank the gentleman.
    And I just want to make a couple of points. You know, soft 
power is an important aspect of our foreign policy. However, 
soft power does not work if we are pushing a lie about China's 
intentions. Soft power does not work if we are blacking out our 
symbols of freedom from our movies, for example, taking the 
Statue of Liberty out of a movie just to appease the Chinese 
Communist Party, and doing it with taxpayer dollars. That makes 
no sense.
    This bill does not say they cannot make a movie. I mean, 
I'm a Federalist. I do not dictate what private businesses 
should do. I do not think the government should do that. But we 
can say to our own government that we are not going to take 
taxpayer dollars and support that censorship. That is 
appropriate. That is right, and it is good soft power because 
we are not going to allow China to dictate a movie's production 
if we are, the taxpayer, funding the assistance in making that 
movie.
    And one important point here--China only allows 34 foreign 
films a year anyway. So we are not talking about, you know, 
some massive number of films. And we are not telling the 
industry they cannot make films, and we are not saying--all we 
are saying here is you cannot use taxpayer dollars to do it. 
That is all.
    And it is very interesting that the Pentagon did not put 
any exceptions when they made their policy. This 
Administration, President Biden and Secretary Austin, said, 
``You know, this does not make sense, so the military is not 
going to play this game anymore.'' Why shouldn't State do the 
same thing?
    I yield.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Any further 
discussion on the bill?
    Mr. Sherman is recognized.
    Mr. Sherman. This bill is an attack on the economy of Los 
Angeles. It is an attack particularly on the economy of the 32d 
District. And it is an attack on one of the very few industries 
that actually brings dollars into our country while sending our 
message out of the country.
    We are told that this bill will not prevent you from making 
a movie. Well, you cannot get a drone permit for any of your 
films if one of your films is thought to offend. But this--
independent of the foreign policy of this, this bill is an 
attack on the First Amendment and gives the power to the 
executive branch to destroy any studio they want for any 
dreamed-up reason. Here's why.
    Not only do you get blacklisted if you show your movie to 
Chinese authorities and they reject it or they ask for changes; 
if in the opinion of the Secretary of State, in the back of 
your mind, you chose not to make a movie or you chose to take a 
scene out of a movie and the Secretary of State dreams up the 
idea that you did it because of China, you cannot get a drone 
permit. You cannot get any cooperation from the Federal 
Government. You cannot make your movie in the Santa Monica 
Mountains National Recreation Area.
    So maybe Mr. DeSantis becomes our next Secretary of State. 
It could happen. He would like to be in control of the 
executive government to some degree. All he has to say is, ``I 
do not like Disney''--we already know that--and say, ``Well, 
you did not make a movie about Tibet. You took a scene out of a 
movie. I think it was--something you did was in anticipation of 
displeasure in Beijing. You are blacklisted.''
    Now, part of the attack is the so-called ``Barbie''--the 
``Barbie'' movie and the so-called nine-dash line. Here Chiang 
Kai-shek's nine-dash line--you'll notice it has nine dashes. It 
goes almost 1,000 miles south of the Chinese mainland.
    Here is ``Barbie.'' Off the coast of Asia, there are eight 
dots, not nine dashes. Eight dots. But furthermore, they are 
off the coast of the part of Asia just away from the Kamchatka 
Peninsula. So these are nine dots off the coast of northern 
Siberia.
    And Hollywood is attacked that it is somehow the nine-dash 
line, including the Spratly Islands. Not only that, the nine-
dash line of Chiang Kai-shek goes 1,000 miles away from the 
coast of mainland Asia. These dots are very close to the coast 
of mainland Asia. If only these dots were the nine-dash line, I 
wouldn't have to oppose China on their nine-dash line so much. 
And they would have Arctic islands off the coast, not too far 
from Kamchatka.
    ``Top Gun'' was a movie made at private expense, and it did 
more for naval recruiting than anything that the Navy has ever 
done. Now, it is China mutilates and attacks our industries and 
our companies, particularly Hollywood. Only 40 movies get in.
    Do we do anything about that as a government? Do we have 
tariffs on Chinese goods? No, because we do not have the 
courage to interrupt the profits of Walmart. But when one of 
our companies is attacked, when one of our companies is told 
that there are blackout dates where you cannot even show your 
movies in China on the very dates the Chinese people want to 
see movies, Congress lacks courage.
    The cowardice of Congress, however, can be disguised by 
this bill. We fail for 20 years to tell the Chinese that if 
they want to send their goods here, they have to allow our 
movies to be shown there. And instead, we roll over, and then 
we attack the very companies that are attacked by China.
    I have and will offer a number of amendments, one of which 
will illustrate how this bill would deal with the fact that 
China and 100 other countries require that they cut some of the 
nudity out of American movies before they allow them to be 
displayed. And we will see how this bill will deal with that 
requirement made by Egypt and Malaysia and South Africa and 100 
others, including China, and what it will mean for China and 
the United States.
    But I will wait for my chance to introduce that amendment. 
I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further 
discussion on the bill?
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove is recognized.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I, too, want to express my strong opposition to this bill. 
All U.S. companies that operate overseas must abide by the laws 
of those countries. And I agree this compliance can sometimes 
have concerning implications for our values. For example, Apple 
and Google pulled down an opposition-led voting app in response 
to demands from Russian authorities. Twitter was ordered to 
remove more than 1,400 accounts after the Indian Government 
determined they undermined India's sovereignty.
    This is indeed the perennial challenge when our openness 
meets closed societies and anti-democratic governments. And 
there is no doubt that those trends are concerning.
    But in these cases, do we say the problem is our openness 
and not the actions of the government seeking to erode it? Do 
we respond by trying to effectively ban our own companies from 
those markets and decimate their ability to operate there, 
especially if these entities are some of our strongest 
mechanisms for enhancing the United States' soft power and 
promoting access to information and ideas?
    That is the logic applied to the film industry by this 
bill, and it makes no sense. It is the laziest possible way to 
address concerns about censorship or content alteration in the 
film industry, at best. At worst, it is actively destructive to 
our own interests.
    In effort to be anti-China, this bill has somehow become 
pro-CCP. These are CCP tactics. Forcing U.S. companies out of 
the Chinese film market only benefits State-sponsored Chinese 
studios whose propaganda will have a monopoly on the Chinese 
audience. It will eliminate one of the most powerful mechanisms 
for illuminating the weakness of the PRC's authoritarian model 
and showcasing the appeal of openness, democracy, human rights, 
and freedom of expression.
    This is not about giving a free pass to film studios to 
reap large profits without accountability, which I strongly 
oppose. I believe the ongoing workers' strike highlights the 
serious progress the industry needs to make in living out its 
stated values, not just abroad but at home, too. And I hope 
they can reach a fair agreement soon.
    But every part of the film industry will be hurt by this 
bill, including the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of 
American actors, writers, and production workers in my 
district. When it comes to addressing censorship concerns, we 
should be working to help American films reach Chinese 
audiences on freer and fairer terms, not punishing and shutting 
down our own industries and disadvantaging our workers.
    And I have two amendments to this bill that I hope my 
colleagues will support. I urge my colleagues to vote no on 
this counterproductive bill, and I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back. Is there any 
further discussion on the bill?
    There being no further discussion, the committee will move 
to consideration of amendments. Does any member wish to offer 
an amendment?
    Mr. Sherman is recognized.
    Mr. Sherman. I have an amendment at the desk dealing with 
the title of the bill.
    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
    And what number is this amendment?
    Mr. Sherman. I do not see a number on it except, at the 
very bottom, it's 2523. Oh, it's 058 at the top.
    Chairman McCaul. 058. The clerk shall distribute 058 
Amendment.
    Mr. Sherman. I plan to ultimately withdraw this amendment, 
but I look forward to presenting it.
    Chairman McCaul. Thank you for that.
    The clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Sherman follows:]

             AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1456 OFFERED BY MR. SHERMAN
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1456, offered by Mr. Sherman 
of California.
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sherman. Representing so many studios and so many 
people that work there, I know a little something about the 
entertainment industry. And representing the San Fernando 
Valley, which at a time was famous for a different kind of 
movie, I know something about that from an economic perspective 
only.
    And that is why I am proposing that we retitle this bill 
the Pornography Protection Act. Why is that? Well, whenever you 
make a movie that has any nudity in it at all or any of the 
scenes that may cause it to get a GP or an R rating or 
whatever, other countries look at that and they require cuts. 
China does. A hundred other countries do as well.
    So, under this act, if there is a certain amount of--oh, I 
should point out that there is one country that is totally 
different. If you want to show an American movie in France, the 
censors there require you to add nudity. But we are not talking 
about France here.
    So you go to China. They say, ``We will let you be one of 
the 40 movies. You can exhibit it, but you have to hide this 
scene or that scene. Barbie's bikini has to be this''--
whatever. Under this bill, if you make that edit, you are 
banned and your whole studio is banned from getting the drone 
permits, from getting anything you need from the Federal 
Government.
    But let's say you do not agree, and let's say it is such a 
popular movie that China allows you to show it without those 
changes. Now, there will be--you will cover Barbie a little bit 
for Egypt and Malaysia, but somehow you force the Chinese to 
take it.
    Then it becomes--in a different title, I call it the 
Mandatory Nudity Exhibition Act because it requires you to show 
to Chinese-viewing moviegoers the same amount of nudity that 
you have in the United States, whether or not the Chinese 
Government wants to accept that, whether the Egyptian and 
Malaysian Government requires that.
    But then there is a third possibility for this title, and I 
call that the Chinese Birth Rate Decline Amelioration Act, 
because the birth rate in the United States, I now believe, is 
higher than that in China. Perhaps that is because of the 
amount of nudity and other scenes in our movies. And if we can 
force the Chinese to show Barbie the way we want to see Barbie, 
maybe that will have an effect.
    So the effect of this bill is not just to tell the Chinese 
that, by God, we have got to show what is happening to human 
rights with the Uighurs; we have got to show as much of Barbie 
as we show ourselves. That is a requirement of this bill. It 
will either lead to the end of all of our movies getting into 
China with the economic effect that has, or it will lead to 
China seeing more than they have seen before. And what effect 
that has on the Chinese birth rate I will leave to 
demographers.
    I will now withdraw the amendment. Oh. Wait----
    Chairman McCaul. You do not want any further discussion?
    Mr. Green. I would like to make a statement on the 
amendment. I would love to address the amendment.
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Green is recognized.
    Mr. Green. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, the bill says the Chinese Communist Party. I 
doubt very seriously that Egypt is allowing the CCP to regulate 
its movie industry.
    Mr. Sherman. If the gentleman will yield.
    Mr. Green. This is comical. I get it. But this is about 
Chinese Communist Party telling Hollywood, ``You have got to 
move this or change this,'' and taxpayer dollars are involved 
with the movie. That's all this is about. And yes, I yield.
    Mr. Sherman. I mentioned Egypt just to say that China was 
not alone in requiring that some of the scenes be covered up a 
bit. But the amendment is there because of what China would 
require. Don't think of Egypt. Don't think of Malaysia.
    Mr. Green. Yes. That's the whole point of the amendment.
    Mr. Sherman. China will require, ``You want to show this 
movie; you cover up a little bit more.`` And the response of 
Hollywood must be, ``No. Take the movie with the same degree of 
nudity that exists in the United States, or do not take it at 
all.''
    So we would have a system in the world where Hollywood 
could adhere to Egyptian standards for Egyptian display, 
exhibition of the movie. But we cannot adhere to Chinese----
    Mr. Green. I reclaim my time. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my 
time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman reclaims.
    Mr. Green. Look. This is nonsensical. The bill is very 
specifically targeted to movies made, you know, for the Chinese 
market. It has nothing to do with what is happening in Egypt. 
It does not say any restrictions on other countries where 
movies are going to deploy.
    It talks about addressing the CCP's intentions of 
undermining the United States' global influence, period. That 
is it. It has nothing to do with Egypt or Guatemala or those 
countries that have a little bit of sensitivity to things. And 
making the argument is just--it is nonsensical.
    And I yield.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields any further 
discussion on this amendment.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove is recognized.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Well, I just had a question for the 
author of the amendment. How much of Barbie do you want to see?
    Mr. Sherman. I want to see the whole movie in its American, 
but maybe not its French, version.
    And if I can continue, the bill is--first of all, the 
gentleman who is the author of the bill says that he wants to 
focus on movies made for the Chinese market. We make no movies 
for the Chinese market, never have, never will. We make movies 
where maybe a small percentage of the revenue will come from 
China. We make movies chiefly for the American market.
    Now, the--he does not want, in the version of the movie 
that is shown in China, the Chinese Communist Party to take out 
this or that political content. But he is or is not OK with 
them taking out this or that degree of nudity. I do not know. 
But the bill deals both. It deals with a political edit of the 
movie in the same way as a nudity edit of the movie.
    And while a few of our movies are edited for political 
reasons at the demand of the Chinese Communist Party, virtually 
all of our movies displayed in China are edited for nudity 
reasons at the insistence of the Chinese Communist Party. And 
that is why the appropriate name for the bill would be the--
well, the Pornography Protection Act or perhaps the Mandatory 
Nudity Exhibition Act.
    I will yield back to the gentlelady from Los Angeles.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back. Any further 
discussion on the amendment?
    There being no further discussion on the amendment, I 
understand the gentleman is prepared to withdraw his amendment.
    Mr. Sherman. I withdraw the amendment, and I have another 
amendment at the desk.
    Chairman McCaul. And I look forward to see how many YouTube 
hits we get from that last discussion.
    The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
    What number is this, Mr. Sherman? Number 59?
    Mr. Sherman. The effective date is actually 061. I have a 
number of amendments, and I do not plan to offer them all. We--
I could go to 61. I will argue that it is germane. Let's go to 
61, and then we can go back to 59.
    Chairman McCaul. OK. The clerk shall distribute the Sherman 
Amendment Number 61. And the clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Sherman follows:]

             AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1456 OFFERED BY MR. SHERMAN
             
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1456, offered by Mr. Sherman 
of California, add at the end of the bill the following----
    Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman reserves a point of order. 
And without objection, further reading of the amendment is 
dispensed with.
    The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sherman. This bill does not impose any taxes or tariffs 
in and of itself. It affects only the effective date of this 
bill. This bill is within the jurisdiction of this committee. 
The effective date of this bill should be in the jurisdiction 
of this committee.
    This amendment, should it be made an order and should it 
attach to the bill, will focus on the real problem here. The 
real problem is that when China attacks American companies, we 
roll over. And we have been doing it for 20 years. If you do 
not want Hollywood to fail to make a movie about Tibet--they 
made a great one 20 years ago; they should make another one--
this bill will not do it.
    I do not think you can--under this bill, you can blacklist 
a studio for not making a particular movie. But we need another 
movie about Tibet, and we need a movie about the Uighurs. Under 
the present system, if a studio happened to make a movie about 
the Uighurs, not only would that movie not be exhibited in 
China; none of that studio's movies would ever be exhibited in 
China.
    So, while this bill focuses on, ``Did you change this scene 
or that scene in the movie?'' the more important issue is, 
``Did you make the movie?'' We need to compensate American 
companies who are mistreated by China. That will certainly 
include any studio that has the guts to make a movie about the 
Uighurs or about a host--or about Taiwan or a host of other 
issues China does not want a movie made about.
    This amendment is focused on making the bill fair. Instead 
of blaming Hollywood for the fact that only 40 movies get in, 
we should blame the Congress because for 20 years, we have 
given them most favored nation status and ignored their 
violations.
    Look at the violations here. They ban all American movies 
during the best dates. Then they limit us to 40 movies. We do 
not limit them to 40 tennis shoes or 40 styles of tennis shoes. 
They limit us to 40 movies. Then they persuade their theater 
owners to go away from the standard, which is that the maker of 
the movie gets 40 percent of the box office, the theater owner 
gets 60 percent--that's already pretty generous to the theater 
owners. And instead, the creator of the movie gets only 25 
percent of the box office.
    These are violations of the WTO by China, and America has 
done nothing. Why do not we do something? Put a tariff on 
Chinese goods and compensate the NBA if they get screwed 
because one of their managers or coaches mentions Taiwan. 
Collect tariffs on Chinese goods, and compensate the studio 
that gets blacklisted because it makes a movie about China. 
That would be fair.
    Instead, what this bill does in the absence of this 
amendment is it says, ``You are being mistreated by China. Your 
movies are being butchered by China. Your movies are being 
limited by China. So we are going to deny you cooperation in 
making your movies. And by the way, it means we will not make 
another Top Gun and Annapolis.'' I think they may get enough 
applications to Annapolis, but not near as many as they get 
now.
    So we cutoff the nose of our military recruiters. We cutoff 
the nose of Hollywood. The face we should be going after is the 
face of President Xi. This amendment focuses on that. When we 
get tough with China, then our companies can get tough with 
China.
    The onus is on the U.S. Congress. The courage could come 
from the U.S. Congress. And if you are not willing to do 
anything that might interrupt profits at Walmart, you are not 
going to be able to confront China on any of their economic 
misdeeds.
    So, with that, I yield back. And I am prepared to argue 
that this bill is indeed within our jurisdiction.
    Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman McCaul. Yes. The gentleman yields back any further 
discussion on the amendment.
    Mr. Green is recognized for his point of order.
    Mr. Green. Well, first, I want to make a point. There is no 
blacklisting in this. ``Top Gun'' would not not be made, 
because Paramount chose not to take the Taiwan flag off the 
jacket. So to suggest that somehow ``Top Gun'' wouldn't be made 
is just a false statement because they had the guts to stand up 
to the CCP. Those that do not are the ones this bill is 
actually addressing.
    But, Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make is that this 
amendment is not germane. And I make that as a point of order.
    Chairman McCaul. I want to give the author of the amendment 
an opportunity to respond to the point of order.
    Mr. Sherman. Again, we have the right in this committee to 
decide when our bills become effective. This bill should not 
become effective until we have a system where Congress has the 
guts to confront China, where Congress compensates those who 
are mistreated by China, and then we can demand that our 
companies stand tough with China.
    I believe that the amendment is germane and within the 
jurisdiction of this committee. It does not by itself impose a 
tax. It simply delays the effective date of this underlying 
bill, which I think is appropriate for our committee. And I 
will leave it to the chair. If I haven't convinced you, I'll go 
on.
    Chairman McCaul. The chair recognizes Mr. Castro.
    I am prepared to rule on the point of order.
    Mr. Castro. My Republican colleagues correctly call out the 
Chinese Government for attempting to censor American speech in 
exchange for market access. But we also need to acknowledge 
that Hollywood is constantly choosing to comply with these 
demands from China.
    Hollywood studios and executives are choosing profits over 
principle, plain and simple. That being said, I cannot support 
this bill as drafted. The language is overly broad and would 
capture minor changes to remove violence or suggestive content 
that would also be flagged by Motion Picture Association 
ratings here in the United States.
    Additionally, the restrictions this bill would impose 
appear to be limited to the company that submitted the film to 
the Chinese Government for review. I have concerns that this 
language is vague and could allow for a legally distinct 
subsidiary of the producer or studio to submit the film for 
review, shielding the producer/studio itself from the 
restrictions under this legislation.
    As I said when this language came before the committee 
during the last Congress, we need to work in a bipartisan 
manner to tackle the broader issue of Chinese censorship across 
industries. In fact, last Congress, I introduced the Bipartisan 
China Censorship Monitor Action Group Act, along with Senator 
Jeff Berkley.
    That bill was enacted as part of the 2022 NDAA. The bill 
established an interagency task force to monitor and report on 
efforts by the Chinese Government to censor the actions of 
Americans and American companies. And I am working with the 
Administration on the implementation of this important 
legislation.
    And as we discuss this piece of legislation, I would be 
remiss not to mention the strikes that are going on in the 
media and entertainment industry. As it stands, the Writers 
Guild of America and Screen Actors Guild--American Federation 
of Television Radio Artists are currently on strike.
    We are in unprecedented times. Writers and actors across 
the country are facing unique barriers to making a living from 
streaming content while Hollywood executives are making more 
than ever before. In 2021, the CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery 
made $246 million. That same year, the CEO of Disney made $46 
million.
    Streaming means more income for Hollywood executives. 
Series budgets have increased while writers' compensation has 
gone down. As one SAG-AFTRA member put it, quote, ``Studios 
continue to cut wages and health benefits, and then the top 1 
percent takes all the money and then cries foul.'' Unquote.
    What is happening at the hands of these corporate 
executives is unacceptable. And the Alliance of Motion Picture 
and Television Producers needs to come back to the bargaining 
table to give workers a fair share.
    With all that said, while I cannot support this bill as 
drafted for the reasons I stated, I also cannot defend these 
studios' pursuit of profit in China while they refuse to pay 
their workers fairly here in the United States. I look forward 
to working with my colleagues to address the issue of 
censorship and build on this committee's bipartisan record.
    With that, Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Any further 
discussion on the amendment?
    There being no further discussion on the amendment, I'm 
prepared to rule on the point of order. Because it would insert 
a new committee of jurisdiction, it fails the committee 
jurisdiction germaneness test. And therefore, the amendment is 
not in order.
    Are there any further amendments to the bill?
    Mr. Sherman. I have an amendment at the desk, Number 59.
    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the Amendment 
Number 59. The clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Sherman follows:]

             AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1456 OFFERED BY MR. SHERMAN
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1456, offered by Mr. Sherman 
of California, page 6, after line 16, insert the following----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sherman. First, let me respond to the bill's owner as 
he points out that Paramount showed courage. It did. I would 
hate to think that we would want to give away all the jobs at 
every company that does not have courage. And some do, and some 
do not.
    But under the drafting of this bill, it is a purely 
subjective matter in the mind of the Secretary of State because 
if the Secretary of State says in anticipation of China, 
thinking of China in the back of your mind, you did this or 
that or failed to do this or that, then you are blacklisted 
from any cooperation on any of your films for 10 years.
    So this allows the Secretary of State to accuse any studio 
that Secretary of State does not like of insufficient courage 
and mutilate that studio's business. To put that amount of 
power in the hands of a Secretary of State, where you have to 
prove that China wasn't in the back of your mind when you made 
any decision, is a power that I wouldn't want to see in any 
executive branch officer.
    Now, shifting to the amendment, the U.S. film industry 
contributes 68.9 billion to the U.S. economy. We are talking 
about 120,000 businesses, 92 percent of which are small 
businesses, 149,000 Americans, rely on this industry for a job. 
This amendment is designed to wreak--well, I do not know if it 
is designed--would have the effect of wreaking havoc.
    Any studio the Secretary of State did not like, all the 
Secretary has to do is say, ``Oh, I do not think you showed 
sufficient courage. I think you would have done something else, 
but you were worried about China,'' and your studio cannot make 
movies. That is a hell of a Sword of Damocles to have over the 
head of a business that is so critical to the economy and the 
fun of the United States.
    And that is why this amendment says that it can be 
suspended if there is a belief that we are going to lose jobs. 
We have got 122,000 businesses, 149,000 jobs, at stake here. 
And clearly, in our relationship with China, we should be ready 
to deal with the importers. We should have the courage to say 
we are going to impose tariffs on goods coming in from China 
until they treat our companies fairly and until that results in 
a change in the balance of payments.
    But we as a Congress show cowardice. We are not willing to 
do that. Instead, we go after the studios and say, ``We are 
going to put you out of business if, in the sole opinion of the 
Secretary of State, you failed to do something because in the 
back of your mind you thought about China. And there is no way 
to prove what was in your mind, so you cannot prevail in any 
lawsuit.''
    So this amendment, I think, takes the right approach and 
focuses on American jobs. I do not think we can exclude 
American jobs from the decisionmaking process.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further 
discussion on the amendment?
    Mr. Green. Mr. Chair?
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Green is recognized.
    Mr. Green. It is odd that we are concerned about this 
because I think in the previous amendment, the author of this 
amendment said that only a small portion of the movie's revenue 
comes from the Chinese market anyway.
    But look. The DoD under President Biden chose not to place 
this exception in their restrictions. And what does that really 
mean? That means that--so the DoD military personnel aren't 
going to go and assist, maybe, with an aircraft or, you know, 
the use of an F-14 or the use of a Black Hawk helicopter, which 
means the studio would then have to go into the marketplace and 
find a place to do that, to replace it, to continue to make the 
bill--or the movie--meaning that would create more jobs because 
the free stuff from the government isn't happening.
    So the whole argument is moot. All this bill does is say 
you cannot use taxpayer stuff to make the movie. So the whole 
point of this amendment is ass backward. Sorry for the French. 
I mean, we talked about them already once, so--also, you know, 
you have to ask yourself, do we trade security for jobs?
    I mean, so go back--let's say for a second that the 
assumption made by the author of this amendment is correct, and 
maybe, somehow, there might be a job or two lost. Do we trade 
that for our security in the competition between us and China? 
I do not think so, and clearly DoD does not think so.
    This amendment basically says it is OK to empower the 
propaganda of a country undermining the United States as long 
as it creates a few jobs. This does not say the movie cannot be 
made, the bill. The taxpayer support is what we are talking 
about. And if the taxpayer support is withdrawn, which the 
movies get for free, basically, then that just means the movie 
has--theater has to go out and get it on the market, which 
creates jobs.
    So, again, I do not understand it. But I oppose this 
amendment.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Any further 
discussion on the amendment?
    There being no further discussion, the question occurs on 
the amendment----
    Mr. Sherman. If----
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Sherman is recognized.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I just want to point out it is not 
about the movie being made. It is about the studio being 
blacklisted for 10 years.
    Second, it does not just say that you cannot provide 
freebies to the movie. It says you cannot contract. You cannot 
allow them in the park. You cannot provide a drone permit.
    So this bill is way broader than any current policy of any 
agency. It is designed to not just affect whether something 
free is given to the creation of one movie; it is designed to 
deny ordinary permits to every movie of a studio for a decade. 
And with that kind of nuclear option, I think we at least need 
this amendment. We probably need to defeat the bill.
    Chairman McCaul. There being no further discussion, the 
question occurs on the amendment offered by Representative 
Sherman, Number 59.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there any further amendments?
    Ms. Manning is recognized.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. And the clerk shall distribute the 
amendment.
    Ms. Manning. Number 26.
    Chairman McCaul. Ms. Manning, Number 26.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This is a straight----
    Chairman McCaul. If the gentlelady would pause.
    The clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Ms. Manning follows:]

              AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1456 OFFERD BY MS. MANNING
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1456, offered by Ms. Manning 
of North Carolina, at the end of the bill, the following----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dismissed.
    The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes on her 
amendment.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This is a straightforward amendment that I am offering to 
H.R. 1456, the legislation offered by my colleague, 
Representative Mark Green. My amendment would help make sure 
that studio film productions that contain important messages 
about democracy, human rights, support for Taiwan, would all 
still be eligible for U.S. Government technical support or 
assistance.
    Mr. Chairman, the Government of the PRC views democracy as 
a threat. It tramples the rights of Uighurs and other religious 
minorities, and it attempts to undermine Taiwan's democracy and 
threaten its safety and stability at every turn.
    To effectively compete with and push back against China, we 
need to bring all elements of U.S. national power to bear, 
including the considerable soft power of American movies and 
popular culture, to help us win hearts and minds in the region.
    Make no mistake: it would be incredibly counterproductive 
and harmful to our interests if we were to sharply limit 
American film production and distribution. That is why my 
amendment would specifically preserve U.S. Government 
assistance for any film that displays the benefits of 
democracy, highlights the PRC's repression of Uighurs and other 
ethnic and religious minorities, or that emphasizes Taiwan's 
right to exist as a democracy.
    Mr. Chairman, colleagues on both sides can agree that films 
containing these important messages should be accessible to the 
Chinese market and that it is absolutely in our interest to 
support films and filmmakers that explore these topics.
    I continue to believe that if we are going to effectively 
compete with China, we need to better harness, rather than 
restrict, American creativity and cultural influence, which are 
important sources of our competitive advantage. That is why I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting my amendment.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back. And we say the 
chair supports this amendment.
    And is there any further discussion on the amendment? Mr. 
Green is recognized.
    Mr. Green. Thank you, sir.
    I want to thank the gentlelady for this amendment. I think 
this amendment adds to the bill, and I appreciate her bringing 
this forward. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back any further 
discussion on the amendment.
    Without objection--I'm sorry. There being no further 
discussion, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by 
Representative Manning, Number 26.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Does any other member wish to offer an amendment? Ms. 
Kamlager-Dove is recognized.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think there's an 
amendment at the desk. Oh, Number 45.
    Chairman McCaul. Amendment Number 25. The clerk shall 
distribute the amendment--45. And the clerk shall report the 
amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Ms. Kamlager-Dove follows:]

          AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1456 OFFERED BY MS. KAMLAGER-DOVE
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1456, offered by Ms. Kamlager-
Dove of California, page 1, after line 6----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes on her 
amendment.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    My amendment demonstrates the immense value American film 
and TV contributes to our international influence and strategic 
competition with the PRC, the soft power of our ideas and the 
economic growth it generates, which is exactly what we will be 
losing if this counterproductive policy passes.
    As someone who represents the art and entertainment capital 
of the country, it is incredibly concerning that we would go 
after our own industries and workers just to seem tough on 
China. But this bill also reflects the broader direction 
counter-China policy has taken under this majority, which has 
been a fundamental questioning of the value of our openness and 
repeated challenges to freedom of speech and expression and the 
free flow of information and ideas.
    When we start viewing our strengths as weaknesses because 
they do not look like our competitors, we start to become the 
very thing we are working to oppose. My amendment seeks to 
reaffirm that the openness, innovation, and cultural exchange 
promoted by film and television are things to be supported, not 
destroyed. And I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
    I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back. Is there any 
further discussion on the amendment?
    Mr. Green is recognized.
    Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Again, a point of order. This bill does not stop any film 
from being made. It just stops, the bill that is being amended 
through this amendment, it just stops taxpayer support. That is 
all.
    It is not stopping any messaging, it is not silencing any 
messaging. It is just stopping the use of taxpayer dollars to 
assist China in its propaganda. Again, something that the 
Democrat-led Administration has chosen to do with the 
Department of Defense on its own initiative.
    This amendment specifically, though, in section, well, on 
line, lines 7 through 10, basically it reads, I am just going 
to read it.
    ``The United States benefits from the cultural knowledge, 
dispersion, and soft power advancement of having United States 
produced films shown in China.''
    How does it benefit the United States if we are advancing 
CCP propaganda? That is what we are talking about. This bill 
only focuses on CCP propaganda edits. That is it.
    So, if we are saying that we are going to benefit somehow 
by advancing CCP propaganda, that, that makes no sense to me.
    And then in the lines 11 through 14, ``The United States 
economy benefits from having one of the two largest box office 
markets in the world as a source of revenue.''
    If it makes money it does not matter that if we are 
advancing China's propaganda? I mean, that is basically what 
the amendment does is it would change the bill that it says, 
look, if it makes money in China then, you know, we should let 
the Chinese propaganda go through.
    So, I oppose the amendment because it basically undoes the 
whole point of the bill. And that may be the intent of the 
author of the amendment, but that isn't what I think is good 
policy. It is not what Secretary Austin and President Biden 
clearly must think is good policy because that is what they 
chose to do without Congress going anything with the Department 
of Defense.
    So, I do not support this amendment.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any member seek further recognition?
    Mr. Meeks is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Meeks. I support this amendment.
    You know, the film industry, as indicated by the 
gentlelady, is an essential for America, and I repeat, it is 
essential for American soft power, and one of our important and 
powerful methods of transmitting our values all over the world.
    And to me, it is interesting that the Chinese people, no 
matter what the Chinese Government says, they are still 
interested in seeing American pictures. They want to see. And 
any time you are showing those films there it enhances our soft 
power because, inevitably, it shows who we are and what our 
strength is.
    Important. That is what soft power is about. They cannot 
wipe us out. They cannot take away who we are and what our 
values are.
    And showing any American film there always indicates who or 
what our values are.
    So, I support the gentlelady's amendment.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any further discussion on the amendment?
    Mr. Castro is recognized.
    Mr. Castro. I know we have been talking about censorship 
and what governments do to control the cultural display in a 
certain place, and how they might use public financing for 
that. The Texas Government does something similar.
    In Texas, in their film incentive program they will not, 
they will not provide funding for any film that is critical of 
Texas, that says something bad about Texas. So, you have a very 
right wing, extreme, conservative government that will not fund 
anything that is even lightly critical of the State of Texas.
    That sounds kind of, you know, a version of what China is 
doing in trying to craft the product for their market.
    I guess I am also--and this is a serious policy question or 
issue--as I was reading this amendment with respect to the bill 
I guess I am confused as to why--Ted Cruz got language that 
deals with this topic into last year's NDAA under section 1257, 
so I am trying to understand why the language isn't just copied 
over from that amendment and put under this bill.
    And I thought, also, that the author had gotten language 
into this year's NDAA on something similar, and trying to 
understand--I guess not--but why you wouldn't just copy Cruz's 
language and put it in here.
    I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any further discussion?
    I would just in response to Mr. Castro's comments, my 
understanding is that the amendment to the NDAA dealt just 
solely with the Department of Defense, not Department of State. 
This, as I understand the author of this bill, Mr. Green, this 
bill focuses on the Department of State.
    Mr. Green. That is correct. This deals with State, which 
comes through this jurisdiction. The amendment is riding on the 
NDAA, which hasn't passed yet.
    So, but it did go through this year in the NDAA, yes. Yes.
    Chairman McCaul. Any further discussion on the amendments?
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. I just wanted to respond.
    You know, film industry, the film companies would pull out 
of the Chinese market rather than lose access to Federal 
assets. And this bill would effectively choke off all Federal 
Government assistance of film makers if they previously 
distributed a film in China.
    I also find it odd that this committee rails on the 
secretary of State when they are invited to this committee and, 
yet, we want to give them final edit on U.S. films. And that is 
what this would do.
    We have to be a little more consistent.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Meeks. Would the gentlelady yield for a second?
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
    The ranking member is recognized.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Yes.
    Mr. Meeks. From my understanding of the bill the 
prohibition is not just to the State Department or Defense 
Department, it is to the entire Federal Government. And if I am 
correct, that is also the reason why this bill was referred to 
another committee, because it is, indeed, covers the entire 
Federal Government and not just one department.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any further discussion on the amendment?
    There being no further discussion, the question now occurs 
on the amendment offered by Ms. Kamlager-Dove, Number 45.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there any----
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. I do request a recorded vote.
    Chairman McCaul. A roll call vote has been requested.
    Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote 
will be postponed.
    Are there any further amendments?
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove is recognized on her Amendment Number?
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Forty-six.
    Chairman McCaul. Forty-six.
    [The Amendment of Ms. Kamlager-Dove follows:]

          AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1456 OFFERED BY MS. KAMLAGER-DOVE
          
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. It is movie day in Foreign Affairs.
    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 1456 offered by Ms. 
Kamlager-Dove of California.
    ``Add at the end of the bill the following:
    ``This Act shall cease--''
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
bill is dispensed with.
    The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    This amendment highlights the highly questionable authority 
this bill gives the Federal Government in dictating private 
entities' ability to exercise freedom of expression, speech, 
and creative decisions that was the ranking member's last 
question, I think, was a great segue into this amendment.
    I find it confusing that we hear so much rhetoric from the 
majority claiming there is an ongoing weaponization of the 
Federal Government to silence certain viewpoints and enforce 
certain value systems. Yet, this bill is itself an example of 
weaponizing government power for those very purposes.
    My amendment States that if this legislation is, indeed, 
found to illegally weaponize Federal authority that it is to be 
unconstitutional, that it should simply cease to take force.
    None of my colleagues who believe in the importance of 
constitutionality and abiding by our constitutional values 
should or would oppose this amendment. I encourage, I encourage 
the committee to support my amendment.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
    Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
    Mr. Green is recognized.
    Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, you know, critical point, this keeps being mentioned 
the other way around, but this is stopping Communist Party 
censorship, not U.S. censorship.
    But, anyway, and this amendment is really about non-
severability or inseverability, so it is--I have not, I have 
been in Congress now about 5 years, I think this is the first 
time I have ever seen where we have said if one aspect is 
unconstitutional we are going to strike the entire bill. And 
maybe I missed it in one or two before, but it is the first 
time I have ever seen it.
    And so I, I disagree with that, that whole concept. If the 
court deems only a small part unconstitutional, why strike the 
whole bill?
    If they, by that decision, said, no, just this part is 
unconstitutional, that must mean the rest is constitutional. 
And why would we take that out?
    This is simply a poison pill. And it is probably coming 
from the studios that want to continue to let the CCP, you 
know, tell them what to do so that they can get access to 
taxpayer funding to make their profit, you know, based on 
whatever China wants to say in order to make that profit.
    So, I oppose this amendment. And, again, it does not seem 
to make sense to me if the courts say this part is 
constitutional and the other is why you would strike the other 
part, too. But perhaps that is why I have never seen an 
amendment like this.
    Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any further discussion on the amendment?
    Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. I support this amendment from Representative 
Kamlager-Dove. This is not a 200-page bill. If a short, compact 
piece of legislation like this one has provisions in it struck 
down by the courts as an unconstitutional violation of the 
First Amendment rights, then the whole law should fail.
    It just seems to me that makes sense. So, I strongly 
support this.
    And let me just also, I am just trying to get the rationale 
of us not wanting to get, you know, films into China. From what 
I understand, the top grossing American film in Chinese history 
is The Avengers. The top hero in the film is Captain America 
who is dressed up in American patriotic colors, with his 
American shield. And it was an American capitalist who 
sacrificed his own life to protect all.
    That was the top grossing American movie in China.
    Why would we want to--that is our soft power. That is 
putting who we are. The Chinese want to see that. We want them, 
we should want them to see that.
    Mr. Green. Would the gentleman yield for a question, quick 
question?
    Mr. Meeks. Yes.
    Mr. Green. Did the Chinese Communists ask for anything to 
be taken out of that movie?
    Mr. Meeks. I do not know.
    Mr. Green. OK.
    Mr. Meeks. That is not the point.
    Mr. Green. Well, that is what we are talking about. See, we 
are talking about stopping movies where they ask us not to.
    Mr. Meeks. My point is and I think, you know, even the 
reverse. Now, Americans do not look at many Chinese movies 
because they are not good. They do not come over, you know, 
they are not the top grossing movies. So, they send them and we 
ain't going to watch them. So, it does not happen on the other 
side in that regard.
    So, with that, I support the gentlelady's amendment, 
though.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. Any further discussion on the amendment?
    Let me say I oppose this amendment.
    The question now occurs on the amendment offered by 
Representative Kamlager-Dove, Number 46.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Meeks. I ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman McCaul. A roll call vote has been requested.
    Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote 
will be postponed.
    Are there any further amendments?
    Further proceedings on this bill are postponed.
    I want to thank Ms. Kamlager-Dove for saying nice things 
about the chairman in Politico today with respect to my ``Peace 
through Music Diplomacy Act.''
    And how is that for soft power?
    [Laughter.]
    Chairman McCaul. OK. Yes, she wanted to know if I listened 
to rap. My children listen to plenty of rap music, so I have 
heard it.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 4725, the ``AUKUS 
Oversight and Accountability Act.''
    [The Bill H.R. 4725 follows:]

                               H.R. 4725
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
                               

    Chairman McCaul. The bill was circulated in advance.
    The clerk shall designate the bill.
    The Clerk. ``H.R. 4725, To conduct oversight and 
accountability of the State Department's implementation of 
AUKUS, and for other purposes.''
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading of 
the bill is dispensed with, and the bill is considered read and 
open to amendment.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    If we are to maintain the global balance of power to ensure 
peace and prosperity, it is critical we must work with our 
closest allies to provide deterrence necessary to prevent 
additional aggression and a conflict with the CCP.
    In February, this committee came together and advanced H.R. 
1093, a bill that requires State to review its regulations and 
address how its regulations hinder advancing AUKUS. It passed 
the House in March with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 
393 to 4.
    Then in April I hosted a classified roundtable with the 
U.K. Secretary of Defense Ben Wallace, the Australian 
Ambassador and former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. We heard about 
multiple instances of delays impacting security operations 
caused by long lag times in obtaining ITAR licenses.
    These ITAR-related challenges were reinforced during our 
U.S. Industry Roundtable. These representatives highlighted the 
opportunities and developments of advanced technologies, and 
addressed domestic capacity presented under Pillar 2 of AUKUS. 
They emphasized the urgency of providing industry relief from 
U.S. Government red tape that stifles innovation and wastes 
money.
    Finally, in May we heard from State Department that it was 
still working toward an exemption for the U.K. and Australia. 
State shared its interim solution, but that solution turned out 
to be an ineffective ITAR regulation modification from 2019.
    For too long State has remained silent in addressing how it 
would contribute to AUKUS' success.
    So, my bill addresses these failures and ensures the State 
Department will have the structure in place to think seriously 
and act expeditiously on AUKUS and ITAR modernization.
    It also requires State to regularly report to Congress on 
these issues where we will hold them accountable if they fail 
to best implement AUKUS.
    We are facing a generational threat in the Indo-Pacific. 
The U.K. and Australia stand ready to support us in the face of 
China's aggression. With more submarines on the water and 
working together on the most advanced weapons, such as 
hypersonics, a strong and fully implemented AUKUS will provide 
the necessary deterrence to Chairman Xi.
    So, we must not let the red tape delay this critical 
partnership any further. And I ask my colleagues to support 
this bill.
    Is there any further discussion on the bill?
    Mr. Meeks, ranking member, is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Chairman.
    I appreciate the intent and the goals of much of this bill 
as written. And I appreciate the chairman's effort to lend 
greater visibility and coordination over AUKUS efforts by the 
Department of State by a senior administrate and senior 
advisor, and establishment of a new AUKUS task force.
    Second, though the Administration has been forthcoming and 
helpful in sharing its progress in AUKUS and its goals, I also 
appreciate portions of this bill's reporting requirement that 
would provide Congress with greater visibility on certain 
details related in its implementation.
    However, although this bill is ostensibly and almost 
entirely about AUKUS, there is a provision within Section 3 
which has nothing to do with AUKUS, and it would continue to 
chip away at the State Department's authority and discretion to 
properly evaluate and assess the potential for countries to 
receive license-free defense articles and services.
    This provision is not scoped or focused on AUKUS partners 
at all, but drafted in a way so that--so as to discretely offer 
back-to-back ITAR exemptions on a global basis and remove 
necessary licensing requirements.
    This leaves space for future Administrations to apply such 
licensing exemptions in a political manner, and depart from the 
longstanding statutory requirement designed to protect 
sensitive defense technologies.
    More specifically, if passed, this provision would provide 
a pathway for such ITAR and licensing exemptions worldwide for 
any country or countries with which the United States may have 
any other variety of deep concerns, including, but not limited 
to, a track record of reverse engineering of U.S. military 
technology which is not a concern that we have at all, we do 
not have that concern with Australia and the U.K., which is why 
I support exemptions to those countries based on the standards 
and areas previously described during this debate.
    So, for these reasons I have concerns with this bill as 
written. And I know that the State Department shares my 
concern.
    In multiple rounds of negotiations with the majority, I 
offered to support the bill and focus the exemptions proposed 
on Australia and the U.K., since this is an AUKUS bill, 
provided a comparability standard was included in the same way 
I proposed with the previous two bills.
    Simply put, I have been consistent in my position. 
Unfortunately, this was rejected and there was another 
alternative to--as was another alternative to focus this text 
solely on AUKUS oversight. We tried to just say let's just 
focus on AUKUS, that is it, oversight and report it, and remove 
this unrelated global exemption pathway.
    Had those changes been made to the bill and this back door 
global defense licensing exemption pathway had been modified or 
eliminated, I would have been happy to support this bill. But, 
unfortunately, the text remains as it is before you today.
    So, I must oppose the bill for those reasons.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any further discussion?
    I would like to say that, in response to the ranking 
member's concern on Section 3, that I do have an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute to strike the provision that created 
a pathway for other foreign allies to obtain an exemption.
    And, also, this ANS will focus on ensuring that Australia 
and the U.K. have guardrails for a full exemption, which 
addresses what concerns that I believe you had placed in this 
bill.
    I do not know if that changes your position entirely, but I 
am prepared to offer that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, barring any further discussion.
    And there being no further discussion, the committee will 
move to consideration of the amendments.
    I do have an amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
Number 80, at the desk. And I ask for its consideration at this 
time.
    [The Amendment of Mr. McCaul follows:]

  AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 4725 OFFERED BY MR. 
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
                                 MCCAUL
                                 


    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
    And the clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. ``Amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 4725, offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas.
    ``Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:''
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    And I recognize myself for a statement on the amendment.
    As I have stated previously, this amendment would strike 
the language regarding other foreign entities from obtaining 
this exemption.
    It also places guardrails on the United States--I mean on 
the U.K. and Australia for technology that we would be sending.
    And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Any further discussion on the amendment?
    Do any members seek recognition?
    Mr. Meeks.
    Mr. Meeks. Yes.
    This working, I am trying to make sure. Right now I am 
having our staffs talk, given the information that you just 
stated, to see if in fact we could reach an agreement.
    Give us one, give us 1 second.
    Chairman McCaul. All right. The committee will stand in 
recess for 5 minutes.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman McCaul. The ranking member is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Given the statements that you have indicated, I think we 
have an agreement. And I now will support this amendment.
    Chairman McCaul. And there being no further discussion, are 
there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute?
    There being no further amendments, the question now occurs 
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
myself.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Do any other members seek recognition?
    There being no further amendments, I move that the 
committee report H.R. 4725, as amended, to the House with a 
favorable recommendation.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. And the 
motion is agreed to.
    A recorded vote, roll call vote has been requested.
    Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote 
and further proceedings on the bill will be postponed.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 1776, the ``End 
Tuberculosis Now Act of 2023.''
    [The Bill H.R. 1776 follows:]

                               H.R. 1776
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
                               
                               


    Chairman McCaul. The bill was circulated in advance.
    The clerk shall designate the bill.
    The Clerk. ``H.R. 1776, To prevent, treat, and cure 
tuberculosis globally.
    ``Be it--''
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading of 
the bill is dispensed with, and the bill is considered as read 
and open to amendment at any point.
    I recognize myself for--I do not.
    Is there any discussion on the bill?
    Mr. Bera is recognized, the author.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to speak in support of my bill H.R. 1776, a 
very patriotic number, the ``End Tuberculosis Now Act.''
    I would like to also thank my co-lead and co-chair of the 
Tuberculosis Elimination Caucus, Representative Maria Salazar, 
for her partnership on this important issue.
    Last Congress this committee unanimously passed the End TB 
Now Act. And I hope we can see the same bipartisan support 
today and finally get this important legislation to the 
President's desk.
    Tuberculosis is largely preventable, treatable, and 
curable. Yet, before the COVID-19 pandemic it was the world's 
biggest infectious disease killer. TB tragically claims more 
lives that HIV/AIDS and malaria combined every year.
    In 2021, an estimated 10.6 million people fell sick, and 
1.6 million people needlessly lost their lives from this 
curable disease.
    Drug resistance to tuberculosis is also the leading cause 
of death from antimicrobial resistance globally, including 
multi-drug resistant and extremely drug resistant TB, which is 
significantly more expensive to treat, with higher rates of 
treatment failure.
    Since 2000, USAID and its partners have saved more than 74 
million lives globally. So, we can do this if we focus on it.
    That is why I am proud to be the lead sponsor of the ``End 
Tuberculosis Now Act'' with my colleague Representative Maria 
Salazar. The bill directs the USAID to align U.S. TB control 
efforts with goals established by the international community. 
These include reducing TB deaths by 95 percent, reducing TB 
incident rates by 90 percent, and reducing the numbers of 
families facing catastrophic health costs if we beat TB by 100 
percent by 2035.
    The bill will make USAID's global TB programs more 
effective by catalyzing support for research and development of 
new tools to prevent, diagnose, treat, and control TB, and by 
strengthening bilateral coordination with global organizations, 
including the Stop TB Partnership, and the Global Fund.
    This legislation also requires reporting, evaluating the 
performance and impact of TB response activities, and includes 
efforts to innovate TB control into health-systems' 
strengthening efforts.
    Many believe TB is a disease of the past, but it is still a 
critical public health threat due to insufficient resources to 
properly identify and treat the disease, and develop new, more 
effective tools to fight TB.
    The ``End Tuberculosis Now Act'' strengthens U.S. 
leadership with our global partners in our comprehensive and 
coordinated fight to end TB worldwide. I urge my colleagues to 
support the bill and together we can eradicate this deadly 
disease.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any further discussion on the bill?
    Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Tuberculosis is the second leading infectious 
disease killer in the world after COVID-19, and 
disproportionately affects the impoverished and marginalized 
communities. And while TB is often thought of as a disease of 
the past, it, unfortunately, remains a major global health 
threat with the resources and attention diverted to fight the 
pandemic.
    TB infections and death are again on the rise after a 
decade of decline. Last year we saw 1.6 million deaths, and 
10.5 million people contracting this largely preventable and 
curable disease.
    So, I applaud our colleagues that worked on this bicameral, 
bipartisan legislation which directs USAID to set bold targets 
to reach and treat the most vulnerable populations, strengthen 
coordination with global organizations, and catalyzes research 
and development, especially for drug-resistant strains of TB 
worldwide.
    So, again, I want to thank Representative Bera and 
Representative Salazar for their work to reintroduce H.R. 1776, 
along with nearly 50 cosponsors in the House that they have 
gathered in support of this vital bill. And calling all members 
of this committee to join me in voting for this very important 
work.
    I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further discussion on the bill?
    There being no further discussion, are there any 
amendments?
    There being no amendments, let me say that I support this 
measure. Tuberculosis is a preventable and curable disease. And 
there is no reason that people should be dying as a result of 
it.
    There being no further amendments, I move that the 
committee report H.R. 1776 to the house, with a favorable 
recommendation.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. And the 
motion is agreed to.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table. Staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming 
changes.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 4517, the ``Ensuring 
Voluntary Actions are Compensated Act.''
    [The Bill H.R. 4517 follows:]

                               H.R. 4517
                               
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    Chairman McCaul. The bill was circulated in advance.
    And the clerk shall designate the bill.
    The Clerk. ``H.R. 4517, To require the Secretary of State 
to submit a plan for the reimbursement of personal funds 
expended to evacuate American citizens, American lawful 
permanent residents, and Afghan allies from Afghanistan, and 
for other purposes.''
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading of 
the bill is dispensed with, and the bill is considered read and 
open to amendment at any point.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    First, I would like to thank my colleague Congressman 
Davidson for introducing this important bill.
    In the spring of 2021, against the advice of his top 
generals in the intelligence community, President Biden 
announced that he would unconditionally withdraw all American 
troops from Afghanistan, a decision I opposed. While the Biden 
Administration said that it had planned for every contingency, 
nothing could be further from the truth.
    During the fall of Kabul, President Biden said, ``There is 
going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted 
off the roof of an embassy from Afghanistan.'' Sadly, that is 
exactly what happened.
    And on August 19th, with Americans and our Afghan partners 
behind enemy lines, President Biden then promised, ``If there 
is American citizens left, we are going to stay and get them 
all out.''
    He did not fulfill that promise either.
    Due to the Administration's failure, many Americans saw the 
chaos of the withdrawal and felt a moral obligation to 
intervene. From civilians, to veterans, to relief groups, 
thousands of Americans started to take action to bring those 
home who were left behind.
    This was an immense undertaking, and all those involved 
utilized any resources they could for their efforts to be 
successful. They spent significant personal funds to save 
Afghan allies, legal permanent residents, and American citizens 
who were being abandoned in Afghanistan. Many cashed out their 
401(k)'s, tapped into their children's college funds, and spent 
their life savings. Simply put, they did what the Federal 
Government cannot do.
    This bill requires State to create a plan to pay back these 
Americans who took on the job of the State Department by 
evacuating allies, LPRs, and American citizens.
    It is not only the right thing to reimburse these people 
for their selfless sacrifices, it is a patriotic thing to do.
    And I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for bringing 
this well thought-out bill. And I fully support it.
    And is there any further discussion on the bill?
    Mr. Davidson is recognized.
    Mr. Davidson. I thank the chairman for bringing this bill 
forward to markup. I thank colleagues from across the political 
spectrum who have helped improve this language even as we work 
toward an amendment in the nature of a substitute shortly.
    But the chairman said it well, you know, America had a 
moral obligation in Afghanistan. And, thankfully, it was met.
    Now, it wasn't met the way it should have been met. You 
know, we should have not taken the military out before we took 
the civilians out. We should have always guaranteed that we get 
all the Americans out and, frankly, the Afghans who risked 
their lives and their own families' lives to help us.
    And while that wasn't done perfectly, it was done better 
than it would have otherwise been done because American 
citizens put their money and their own lives at risk to get 
fellow Americans and Afghan allies, who truly risked everything 
to help us, out.
    Now, we need not relitigate what happened, or why it 
happened, or anything else. What we have an opportunity to do 
with this bill is to come together and say we want to make 
these people whole who drained their savings. And, 
fundamentally, they have already paid their taxes. The tax 
dollars should have covered this responsibility. This is just a 
chance to make that right for the individuals.
    There does not need to be a lot of fanfare about it. I 
think a lot of people would rather keep it that way. But I am 
just glad my colleagues are coming together to move this 
legislation. I think it really sends the right, the right 
message to do that.
    And I will read from this letter in a few moments but, Mr. 
Chairman, I would also like to submit for the record a letter 
of support for this bill signed by 11 organizations that 
provided lifesaving aid in Afghanistan.
    I thank them for their work during this withdrawal. It 
saved numerous lives, and it really sets a great example for 
others to take the burden that our country needs to bear upon 
themselves, even when sometimes the country falls short.
    I think it is important that we do this, and they do as 
well.
    I ask unanimous consent to submit this record to the 
record.
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information referred to follows:]

                                letter 2
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    Mr. Davidson. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further discussion on the bill?
    There being no further discussion on the bill, the 
committee will move to consideration of amendments.
    Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
    Mr. Meeks. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Meeks is recognized for purposes of 
his amendment.
    Mr. Davidson, I believe you have an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
    Mr. Davidson. Correct, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute and would ask to present an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    Chairman McCaul. We will recognize that.
    The clerk shall distribute Amendment Davidson Number 74.
    [The Amendment of Mr. Davidson follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

   
    
    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. ``Amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 4517 offered by Mr. Davidson of Ohio.
    ``Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:
    ``This Act may be cited the ``Ensuring Voluntary--''
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes on his 
amendment.
    Mr. Davidson. Again, I thank the chairman.
    And I really just wanted to thank these, our fellow 
Americans, who really stepped up and helped save lives there in 
Afghanistan.
    I just want to read from the letter that we just submitted 
to the record because I think it is stated well.
    ``One of the enduring''--let me just read it--``one of the 
enduring legacies of Operation Allies Refuge and Operation 
Allies Welcome is the roles played by veterans, civilians, and 
military service members operating of their own accord and 
providing lifesaving direct aid to Afghan allies and their 
fellow Americans.
    ``These actions were borne out of a sense of duty, moral 
obligation, and compassion toward thousands of Afghans who 
shouldered an immense burden on behalf of the interests of the 
United States.
    ``It is important to note, however, that these burdens 
taken up by this narrow assortment of Americans did not end 
when the final C-17 lifted off of Hamid Karzai International 
Airport.
    ``When the situation for Afghan allies was the bleakest in 
the winter of 2022, it was American civilians and veterans who 
led the charge and continued to provide food, shelter, 
immigration assistance. These selfless actions came at immense 
cost, as most of those who provided aid did so from their 
personal finances.''
    And that is what this bill does is it rectifies that, and 
it makes people whole, frankly, who never thought that it would 
happen. They came here to tell their story when we finally had 
an oversight hearing in this Congress about the withdrawal.
    And we heard from people, one who lost limbs and nearly 
lost his life in a bomb detonation there, but we also heard 
people who were providing this kind of aid there, people that 
drained their savings. And they came here to tell their story. 
They did not come here to get a bill like this passed. No one 
asked me to move the bill. Just in hearing their testimony I 
thought this might be something that could really make a 
difference.
    I hope we can get it across the finish line. I hope we can 
continue to work with the statement Department, the Department 
of Defense, and others, to be able to get this dialed in the 
right way so we can establish a cost and we can finish our work 
here in Congress to get these people made whole.
    I encourage all our colleagues to support it. And I just 
appreciate the collaboration that has brought us to this point. 
I hope we can run through the tape and deliver for them because 
they delivered, not only for us, but for so many others.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Let me say I support this amendment. And I know our 
veterans do as well.
    Do any other members seek recognition?
    Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Again, the individuals who donated their time and their 
resources to support the evacuation of Afghan allies represent 
the very best of America. We have a proud tradition of 
generosity, an impulse to help when we see a crisis, and 
decades of sacrifice and shared mission binding us with our 
Afghan allies.
    I understand that many Americans went to great lengths and 
incurred significant costs in support of the evacuation of 
vulnerable Afghans fleeing an uncertain future after the Ghani 
government fled and the Taliban took control.
    I believe it could be a worthwhile exercise for the 
Department of State and the Department of Defense to examine 
whether it is feasible to reimburse individuals who contributed 
their personal funds to the critical evacuation efforts. And as 
a result, I intend to support this legislation.
    And I appreciate the efforts of the majority staff and Mr. 
Davidson to work with my team to move the bill via an ANS.
    We should remain clear-eyed about the fundamental issue. 
When I talk to many of the groups and individuals involved in 
this issue and ask, How can I help? you know, they are so 
focused and dedicated they do not even ask me about being paid 
back for their charitable donations. Quite frankly, they do not 
even expect to be paid back.
    What they do expect is that Congress will do more to 
clearly define the status of the Afghans who are already here 
so that they can build their lives with certainty. And many 
members, on both sides of the aisle, offered amendments to do 
just that when we were debating the NDAA a few weeks ago. And I 
am just disappointed they were not made in order.
    There are too many people who are being left in limbo by 
our immigration and refugee system, not only Afghan allies 
whose status should be made permanent, but also Dreamers, and 
asylum seekers fleeing violence and uncertainty in our own 
hemisphere.
    As we move forward with this legislation before us today, I 
hope we will also recognize that there is much more work still 
to be done to keep the faith with our Afghan allies and those 
thousands of Americans who donated generously to help Afghan 
evacuees, and that welcoming immigrants and refugees is just as 
much a part of our Nation's highest traditions as the 
generosity we seek to honor with this bill.
    It is the right thing to do. Congress must work in a 
bipartisan way to get it done.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any further discussion on the amendments?
    Mr. Stanton is recognized.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Americans owe gratitude to the many people who evacuated 
U.S. citizens and Afghan allies during the U.S. withdrawal from 
Afghanistan, especially our military, Federal employees, NGO's, 
and private citizens.
    The throngs of people, Americans, allies, made the final 
evacuation from Afghanistan a group effort. It required all 
hands on deck, and Americans responded generously, donating 
private planes, money, organizational skills, homes, and time 
to get people out of Afghanistan.
    This bill, with the amendment, directs the State Department 
to create a feasibility study on repaying those generous 
volunteers. There are people in my district who helped with the 
evacuation and resettlement of Afghan allies. In fact, 64 young 
Afghan women were able to transfer their studies from 
Afghanistan to Arizona State University due to the coordinated 
effort of professors, individual donors, and private company 
sponsorship that got them to safety.
    Meanwhile, my office worked alongside others to evacuate a 
different set of women from Afghanistan. These women, who 
served in the Afghan National Army's Female Tactical Platoon 
are called FTPs. They were combat soldiers who were recruited, 
rigorously vetted, and trained by elite U.S. strike forces.
    These courageous women risked their lives by going where 
male soldiers couldn't in a majority Muslim country, searching 
and questioning women and children in pursuit of Taliban 
targets. The platoon conducted 2,000 missions, including high 
risk and highly classified missions alongside Green Berets, 
Navy SEALs, and Army Rangers.
    Their work to support our mission, and their gender, makes 
them and their families a top target for the Taliban.
    So, again, I am grateful for the work our volunteers put in 
to get our citizens and allies to safety. And I want to see how 
we can best repay them.
    But I can also tell you what our volunteers really want, 
what they have repeatedly asked for, is for Congress to pass 
the ``Afghan Adjustment Act.'' This act would establish a 
pathway to permanent status for our Afghan allies. These are 
people who risked their lives and the lives of their families 
to serve alongside the U.S. mission. Many are now here in the 
United States contributing their talent to American society, 
without any guarantee that they will be allowed to stay.
    I, and I know many of my colleagues, are deeply frustrated 
by how uncertain their futures still are. And I know Americans 
who helped resettle them are, too.
    So, I support this bill. But I also think there are better, 
more urgent ways to repay our generous volunteers and do right 
by our Afghan allies. And I urge my colleagues to consider and 
pass the Afghan Adjustment Act.
    I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any member, other members seek recognition?
    There being no further discussion, are there any further 
amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
    There being no further amendments, the question now occurs 
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
Representative Davidson, Number 74.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. And the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to.
    I move that the committee report H.R. 4517, as amended, to 
the House with a favorable recommendation.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. And the 
motion is agreed to.
    Mr. Davidson. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman McCaul. A roll call vote has been requested.
    Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote 
and further proceedings on the bill will be postponed.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 4741, the ``Securing 
Global Telecommunications Act.''
    [The Bill H.R. 4741 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    
    Chairman McCaul. The bill was circulated in advance.
    And the clerk shall designate the bill.
    The Clerk. ``H.R. 4741, To require the development of a 
strategy to promote the use of secure telecommunications 
infrastructure--''
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading of 
the bill is dispensed with. The bill is considered as read and 
open to amendment at any point.
    Is there any discussion on the bill.
    Ms. Manning is recognized.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am proud to speak in support of H.R. 4741, ``Securing 
Global Telecommunications Act,'' a bipartisan bill I introduced 
and which passed the House last Congress, to help combat 
China's attempts to dominate the next generation of critical 
technology.
    I would like to thank my friend Congresswoman Young Kim of 
California for co-leading this important bill with me, and 
Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Meeks for considering our 
bill in today's markup.
    Mr. Chairman, many of the products we use every day are 
connected to telecommunications networks. And they rely on a 
nearly invisible set of internationally agreed-upon standards.
    Our strategic competitors Russia and China want to gain an 
unfair advantage over these critical areas. They are determined 
to set the rules of the road for the next generation of 
critical technologies, like 5G and AI. And they are relentless 
in their efforts to provide their own companies, like Huawei 
and ZTE, with an unfair advantage while shutting out all 
competitors.
    But this effort is not just about helping their businesses 
win, this is about controlling a key strategic domain which 
poses serious risks and consequences for the U.S. and for 
global security. That is because the PRC has demonstrated its 
willingness to abuse technology, to steal data, conduct 
surveillance, and invade privacy, all to further their 
geopolitical agenda and bolster their model of a closed 
authoritarian system of governance.
    The United States and our allies must work together to 
counter this threat. We need to develop and deploy more secure 
and better-trusted tech and telecommunications infrastructure. 
This bipartisan bill would help do just that.
    First, the bill would require a comprehensive strategy for 
securing global telecommunications infrastructure worldwide, 
incorporating mobile networks, data centers, and emerging 
technologies like LEO satellites and 6G.
    We cannot afford to be complacent about this challenge. 
Having a cohesive strategy is an important part.
    Second, the bill will help crack down on Russia's and 
China's malign influence at the International Telecommunication 
Union, or ITU, a little known but incredibly important U.N. 
organization that could determine the standards behind the 
future of the digital world. It is vital that America and 
allied countries are in the room, at the table, and leading the 
charge to set the next generation technology standards.
    That is one reason why it is so important that America's 
own candidate, Doreen Bogdan-Martin, was elected last year to 
serve as Secretary-General of the ITU.
    Finally, the bill would encourage the U.S. to work closely 
with our allies and partners to promote and finance secure 
networks and trusted vendors without having to rely on Chinese 
State-owned companies that threaten our security.
    Mr. Chairman, our adversaries hope and believe they can 
achieve undue influence and dominance over international 
telecom infrastructure and technology standards. This bill 
would help stop them while preserving American leadership and 
keeping our companies competitive.
    Once again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for 
their leadership, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this bill.
    Mr. Self [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back.
    Is there any further discussion?
    You are recognized.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I rise to strongly support Representative Manning's 
legislation, the ``Securing Global Telecommunications Act.''
    For too long the United States has sat idly by while China 
and other malign actors around the globe invest heavily in 
promoting their telecommunications hardware makers.
    The PRC Government subsidizes their companies on the front 
end so that those companies can research and invest in new 
technologies with government support. Sometimes the PRC 
Government assists in intellectual property theft. And Huawei 
has been charged with decades-long campaign to steal American 
technology, and has been convicted in civil cases of stealing 
from American mobile providers.
    While all of this helps to create a competitive product, 
the PRC Government provides attractive and sometimes deceptive 
financing to encourage nations around the globe to use Huawei 
as a key equipment provider for the telecommunications 
networks.
    This cradle-to-grave support, that is sometimes above-board 
and sometimes not, has led Huawei and its Chinese rival ZTE, to 
become two of the four largest telecoms equipment providers in 
the world, with dominant market shares in many parts of the 
developing world.
    It is past time that the United States develop a strategy 
to combat these companies and develop a plan to lead on next 
generation telecom technologies. Representative Manning's bill 
sets us on that path. And I strongly support it and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Self. The gentlelady yields back.
    Is there any further discussion?
    Seeing none, there being no further discussion of the bill, 
the committee will move to consideration of amendments.
    Does any member wish to offer an amendment.
    There being no amendments, I move that the committee report 
H.R. 4741 to the House with a favorable recommendation.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All opposed, by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. And the 
motion is agreed to.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table. And staff is authorized to make any technical and 
conforming changes.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 4691, ``Iran 
Sanctions Relief Review Act of 2023.''
    [The Bill H.R. 4691 follows:]

                               H.R. 4691
                               
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

n advance.
    The clerk shall designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 4691, a bill to provide for congressional 
review----
    Mr. Self. Without objection, the first reading of the bill 
is dispensed with. And the bill is considered as read and open 
to amendment at any point.
    I now recognize myself for a statement.
    My bill, the ``Iran Sanctions Relief Review Act of 2023,'' 
both clarifies and strengthens Congress' role in approving any 
agreement, written or unwritten, that relieves sanctions on 
Iran.
    This Administration has restarted indirect negotiations 
with Iran to relieve sanctions and unfreeze assets. I am very 
concerned that this Administration intends to bypass Congress 
completely.
    The Iranian regime is our adversary. It sponsors terrorism 
across the Middle East, and sells drones to Russia. It makes no 
secret of its hatred for America and our ally Israel. And it 
wants a nuclear weapon.
    It is extremely misguided to pursue a deal with Iran, 
especially a deal that relieves human rights sanctions on a 
regime that brutally oppresses its own people.
    My bill would require the President to report to Congress 
any proposed action to relieve sanctions on Iran. It would then 
establish a review period in which Congress, after conducting 
appropriate hearings and oversight, could vote to approve or 
disapprove of the action.
    This is modeled after the ``Countering America's 
Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017,'' known as CAATSA, 
which strengthened Congress' role in approving sanctions relief 
on another adversary and human rights abuser, Russia.
    That bill, passed with bipartisan support, Congress must 
conduct oversight of the executive branch. It must not 
relinquish its foreign policy powers to any president.
    This bill reaffirms Congress' important role in deciding if 
and when to relieve sanctions.
    I thank the chairman for his indulgence on my timing, and 
his staff for their work on this important issue. And urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
    Is there any discussion on the bill?
    Mr. Meeks.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you.
    Mr. Self. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you. I have serious concerns about what 
this bill means to the overall practice of American foreign 
policy and therefore must oppose it in its current form. It is 
hard for any member, particularly this member, to be opposed to 
a bill that is meant to increase congressional oversight of 
sensitive foreign policy issues.
    However, on a specific case of this draft bill were it to 
be signed into law, I believe it would damage America's ability 
to conduct effective diplomacy. When dealing with our enemies, 
a strong diplomatic core and strong military are both necessary 
to achieve our goals. In the specific case of Iran, they can 
clearly see from our consistent joint military exercises and 
regional deployments that we do, in fact, mean business.
    Our diplomatic efforts have also proven very effective. 
Case in point was the successful implementation of the JCPOA 
which verifiably cutoff all pathways to Iranian bomb. The 
dangerous moment we now find ourselves in is the direct result 
of the shortsighted cancellation of that diplomatic agreement.
    The Iranian nuclear threat has never been more dangerous 
than it is right now in this moment. The United States must 
keep diplomacy on the table as a tool to address the Iranian 
threat. If this proposed bill is set into law, Iranian 
negotiators will know and ally negotiators would know that the 
executive branch officials in the negotiation room cannot 
independently make decisions.
    Our negotiators will be at an acute disadvantage. Other 
parties, friendly or foe, will know any adjustment in sanctions 
implementation would become subject to a joint motion of 
disapproval. Carefully negotiated multilateral agreements risk 
becoming subject to partisanship in the U.S. Congress. Such an 
action is worrisome to me and without precedent.
    I also believe this bill directly interferes with the INARA 
progress. Diplomatic agreements with Iran are already subject 
to congressional review as a whole. This bills goes far and 
beyond that statute.
    Even if the U.S. Congress declared an Iran deal through the 
comprehensive INARA process, sanctions implementation would 
once again become subject to binding congressional review, 
risking the agreement itself. This legislation could also harm 
our efforts to de-escalate tensions with Iran shy of a 
comprehensive agreement. If this or future Administrations try 
to negotiate a short term diplomatic agreement on nuclear or 
other issues, such as regional troop protection, this 
legislation could interfere with that process.
    I also like to make a more general point about sanctions, 
and I believe this Congress sometimes forgets. Sanctions are 
meant to be lifted if they achieve our goals. Our nuclear 
sanctions would not pass the foment regime change in Iran no 
matter how much we may hope they were.
    They were designed to drive Iran to the table and to 
negotiate the end of their nuclear weapons program. If we reach 
an agreement that clears INARA, one that verifiably cuts off 
pathways to a nuclear weapon, we have to live up to our end of 
the agreement. Legislation like this is designed to thwart out 
obligations, damaging our diplomatic flexibility and 
trustworthiness.
    Finally, some will argue that there is precedent for such a 
policy vis-a-vis Russia. That is inaccurate. The scope of 
Russia sanctions in CAATSA is much smaller. For instance, 
national emergencies past and present are included in this 
proposed bill but not in CAATSA.
    The new Russia sanction EOs aren't covered by CAATSA. The 
new Iran EO would be. There are also many sanctions in CAATSA 
where there's no congressional review.
    This bill, however, would apply to the entire universe of 
Iran sanctions. Finally, CAATSA mechanisms was established 
specifically to deal with Russian interference in the 2016 
election. It wasn't about trying to prevent legitimate 
diplomacy as I believe this will do.
    My friends and colleagues, we must look beyond Iran before 
going down this road. I've been here for a long time, and I 
know that if passed into law, this type of policy will not stop 
with Iran. If this was to become law, it will only be a matter 
of time before the lifting of any sanctions, no matter how 
small will be subject to congressional vote.
    That is not Congress' job. It is our duty to provide the 
authority and the appropriations for effective foreign policy. 
It is not to conduct it in this manner, and this is for a good 
reason.
    We cannot have 535 Secretaries of State in a negotiation 
room. Please think carefully before staring down this road. And 
I yield back.
    Mr. Self. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further 
discussion? Seeing none, there being no further discussion of 
the bill, the committee will move to consideration of 
amendments. Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
    Mr. Meeks. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Mr. Self. The gentleman is recognized. The clerk shall 
distribute the amendment. The clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Meeks follows:]

               AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4691 OFFERD BY MR. MEEKS
               
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 4691 offered by Mr. Meeks of 
New York. Page 7, beginning----
    Mr. Self. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes on the amendment.
    Mr. Meeks. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I believe 
the joint resolution of this approval created by this proposals 
meant to provide Congress an up or down vote on each Iran 
sanction lifted by the Administration sets a dangerous 
precedent for American foreign policy. This is not the same 
mechanism found in CAATSA which is narrowly tailored to address 
a very specific sanction related to Russia's interference in 
the 2016 Presidential election. My amendment would strike the 
harmful diplomacy damaging JRD section of the legislation while 
still ensuring Congress has significant visibility into the 
Administration's sanction actions which is appropriate given 
the legislative branch's oversight role in our constitutional 
system.
    And again, as I mentioned before, I hope my colleagues can 
look beyond Iran and consider what establishing this policy 
could mean for the management of global sanction campaigns in 
the future. And I ask for your support for this amendment. And 
I yield back the remainder of my time.
    Mr. Self. The gentleman yields back. I rise to oppose this 
amendment. I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    While I appreciate the ranking member's concern, I must 
oppose this amendment. The model of Section 216 of the 
Countering American Adversaries Through Sanctions Act 
established a precedent for Congress to conduct oversight over 
removal of sanctions. CAATSA received overwhelming bipartisan 
support passing the House 419 to 3.
    Iran is an incredibly dangerous actor. The Iranian regime 
has committed countless human rights violations, supports 
Russia's illegal war of aggression in Ukraine, and uses its 
proxies to attack Americans. It is essential that Congress 
exercise basic oversight over any potential agreement with Iran 
that may result in the lifting of sanctions.
    Not only is there precedent for this process, there is also 
an obvious need for it. Under the JCPOA, the Obama 
Administration lifted sanctions on Iran despite widespread 
congressional opposition and concerns from the American people 
helping fuel Iran's malign activities. I believe I remember to 
the tune of some 115 billion dollars.
    It is the responsibility of Congress to be the voice of the 
people. A joint resolution of disapproval process as 
established by this bill gives the people a voice in sanctions 
relief. And I will add this Congress does not want to put 
Israel in the position to defend itself against a potential 
nuclear Iranian State committed to the destruction of Israel.
    This amendment would render this bill effectively useless. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and 
support the bill as written. I yield back. Do any other members 
seek recognition? There being no further discussion, the 
question now occurs on the amendment offered by Ranking Member 
Meeks, number 42.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the 
amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Meeks. I ask for a recorded vote.
    Mr. Self. A roll call vote has been requested. Pursuant to 
the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. 
Are there any further amendments? Further proceedings on this 
bill will be postponed.
    Chairman McCaul. Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 
3152, the Fight and Combat Rampant Iranian Missile Exports Act. 
The bill has circulated in advance and the clerk shall 
designate the bill.
    [The Bill H.R. 3152 follows:]

                               H.R. 3152
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
                              

    The Clerk. H.R. 3152, a bill to impose sanctions with 
respect to countries, individuals, and entities that engage in 
any effort to acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer, 
or deploy Iranian missiles and related goods and technology----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading of 
the bill is dispensed with. The bill is considered as read and 
open to amendment at any point. I now recognize myself for an 
opening statement.
    This coming October, U.N. restrictions preventing countries 
from buying, participating in, or otherwise enabling Iran's 
drone and missile program will expire. Iran is a pariah State 
that brutalizes its citizens and threatens the global balance 
of power with their nuclear ambitions in illicit arms trade. 
Moreover, they have helped the Kremlin prosecute this 
unprovoked war of aggression in Ukraine.
    We have seen the Iranian drones used by Putin to target 
civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. They have attacked 
apartments, energy infrastructure, and other critical sites in 
an effort to break the will of the people. Specifically, they 
attacked civilians.
    These drones have also been used by Iranian proxies like 
the Houthis to target our regional partners while also 
threatening the tens of thousands of American troops and others 
living and working in the region. U.S. servicemembers are 
regularly the victims of Iranian backed drone attacks in Iraq 
and Syria, including a recent drone strike that killed a U.S. 
military contractor and wounded more than two dozen Americans. 
If this U.N. ban expires, Iran will be free to openly transfer 
these lethal weapons to autocrats, war criminals, terrorist 
proxies around the world without restraint.
    My bipartisan bill, the Fight and Combat Rampant Iranian 
Missile Exports or Fight Crime Act, would impose mandatory 
sanctions on anyone involved in the supply, sale, or transfer 
of Iran's missiles and drones even if the U.N. restrictions 
expire. This bipartisan legislation makes clear that the United 
States and its allies and partners will hold those enabling 
Iran's missile and drone proliferation accountable regardless 
of whether U.N. restrictions remain in effect. This bill is 
essential to our efforts to combat the proliferation of Iranian 
missiles and drones, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill. Is there any further discussion on the bill? The ranking 
member, Mr. Meeks, is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. For decades, the United States and our allies 
have harbored grave concerns regarding Iran's ballistic missile 
program. Leading among them is the fear that they are being 
developed to 1 day deploy a nuclear warhead. But we have also 
experienced Iran's short and medium range missiles pose a 
direct and deadly threat to American forces in the region and 
the territories of numerous allies and partners.
    Iran currently has over 3,000 ballistic missiles in the 
stockpile. In recent years, despite international pressure, 
these missiles have achieved much greater range and accuracy. 
Iran has also supplied precision guided missiles and drones to 
proxies in Lebanon and Syria.
    Iran's growing missile capabilities could 1 day allow it to 
threaten European and the United States mainland directly. 
Without a doubt, it is in the interest of the United States to 
prevent Iran from further expanding its missile capabilities. 
Today, global sanctions are in place which aim to limit Iran's 
missile program.
    They are found in the U.N. Security Council Resolution 
2231. But unfortunately, they are set to expire in October 
2023. Russia and China's presence on the Security Council has 
made it impossible to negotiate an extension of these multi-
lateral sanctions.
    In October when the U.N. regulations expire, Iran would be 
free in the eyes of the U.N. to develop nuclear weapon delivery 
systems, including ICBMs that could reach the United States 
homeland. So let's be clear. Iran has never abided by the 
missile restrictions outlined in the Security Council 
resolution.
    But when the sanctions expire, it would open the door for 
Iran to advance its missile program, utilizing technologies 
more freely from around the world. Upon exploration of the 
sanctions, Iranian leaders will immediately gain access to 
items they could not easily acquire domestically such as 
gyroscopes, sensors, and numerous other sophisticated 
components necessary for modern ballistic missiles. And upon 
securing these technologies from abroad, Iran could begin to 
reverse engineer them and begin domestic production as it has 
done in the past.
    That is why along with allies, we must act. And I applaud 
the European Union for telling Iran that they plan to retain 
their own EU union ballistic missile sanctions set to expire in 
October. Today, we want to send Iran the message of the United 
States intends to do the same. And that is why we have 
introduced this bipartisan legislation that imposes mandatory 
property blocking and visa sanctions on anyone involved in the 
supply, sale, or transfer, or support for Iran's missiles and 
drones.
    This legislation also requires the executive branch to 
submit a report on Iranian missiles and drones to Congress, 
specifically outlining their strategy to counter this menace. 
There is near global consensus that Iran should not be allowed 
to acquire a nuclear weapon or the missiles that could help 
them carry them. So I encourage all of my colleagues to support 
this important bipartisan legislation, and I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back, and I certainly 
appreciate his support for this important bill. Is there any 
further discussion on the bill? Dean Phillips is recognized.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for introducing the 
Fight Crime Act. And it's a pleasure to join you and Ranking 
Member Meeks and Chair Wilson in leading the effort. We all 
know that Iran continues to violate international missile and 
drone-related restrictions.
    By continuing their nefarious activities with their 
missiles and drones targeting our troops, our allies, our 
partners across the Middle East, and increasingly supporting 
Putin's illegal and unjust invasion of Ukraine which we all 
find unacceptable. What's even worse is the U.N. Security 
Council resolution as Ranking Member Meeks just referred to is 
limiting their progress. But it will expire this October.
    And while we surely should do everything possible to see 
that it is renewed, I think we'll all agree that Russia is 
almost certain to make that impossible. So without action from 
the rest of the international community, Iran's missiles and 
drones will continue to wreak havoc around the globe. So that's 
why I'm pleased our European partners have decided to impose 
unilateral sanctions on Iran's drone and ballistic missile 
programs, and we must follow suit.
    That's why I'm pleased to see H.R. 3152, the Fight Crime 
Act, come before the committee today. It imposes mandatory 
property blocking and visa sanctions on anyone involved in the 
supply, the sale, or the transfer, or support for Iran's 
missiles and drones, effectively ensuring that U.S. sanction 
imposed in accordance with UNSCR 2231. Do not lapse if the 
resolution should expire.
    So I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis to pass 
this bill into law before October and find ways to hold the 
Iranian regime accountable for its malign behavior. With that, 
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Is there any 
further discussion on the bill? There being no further 
discussion of the bill, committee will move to consideration of 
amendments. Does any member which to offer an amendment?
    There being no amendments, I move that the committee report 
H.R. 3152 to the House with a favorable recommendation.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the 
motion is agreed to.
    And on that, I request a recorded vote. A roll call vote 
has been requested. Pursuant to the chair's previous 
announcement, this vote and further proceedings on the bill 
will be postponed.
    We have three votes on the House floor. So the committee 
will stand in recess and we will reconvene after the votes are 
finished and complete on the House floor.
    [Whereupon, at 1:37 p.m., the committee recessed, to 
reconvene at 2:23 p.m., the same day.]
    Chairman McCaul. The committee will come to order. Pursuant 
to notice, I now call up H. Res. 578, Calling for the immediate 
release of Eyvin Hernandez, a United States citizen, Los 
Angeles County public defender who was wrongfully detained by 
the Venezuelan regime in March 2022. The resolution was 
circulated in advance. The clerk shall designate the 
resolution.
    [The Bill H. Res. 578 follows:]

                              H. RES. 578
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

 AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H. RES. 578 OFFERED BY MS. 
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
                            KAMLAGER-DOVE

    The Clerk. H. Res. 578, calling for the immediate release 
of Eyvin Hernandez, a United States citizen and Los Angeles 
County public defender, who was wrongfully detained by the 
Venezuelan regime in March 2022.
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is 
dispensed with and the resolution is considered read and open 
to amendment at any point. And without objection, the Kamlager-
Dove Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 44 circulated 
to members in advance shall be considered as read and will be 
treated as original text for purposes of amendment. The 
gentlelady--well, is there any discussion on this resolution? 
The gentlelady--sorry, Kamlager-Dove is recognized.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to 
thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Ranking Member, for the 
opportunity to mark up my resolution. Thank you for working 
with me on this and calling for the release of my constituent, 
Eyvin Hernandez, who has been unjustly, arbitrarily, and 
wrongfully detailed in Venezuela for over 15 months.
    I'd like to take a moment to share Eyvin's story with all 
of you. He's one of our own. I come from the city of angels, 
and Eyvin is one of our angels. He is a Los Angeles County 
public defender. He's a UCLA alum. He's a deeply beloved member 
of the community.
    As a toddler, he fled with his family from the civil war in 
El Salvador and grew up to become a lawyer, devoting his entire 
career to fighting for the most vulnerable in our city. Eyvin 
is known by his family, his friends, his colleagues and mentees 
as a man of impeccable character with an incredibly generous 
heart. In fact, when I met with his family and friends, 
everyone said he was their best friend.
    And they recounted all of the ways that he'd stepped in to 
help them. He is constantly giving back to his community, 
tutoring and mentoring other Latino law students and helping 
create a support system for those who often go without. But his 
life changed when he went on vacation to Colombia in March 
2022.
    He found himself at the Colombian-Venezuelan border where 
he was stopped by armed men. Once they discovered he was an 
American citizen, they captured him, they kidnaped him, and 
delivered him to the Venezuelan regime to be detained and used 
as a political pawn. Eyvin has been in prison for 15 months.
    It took the State Department a heartbreaking 7 months to 
designate him as wrongfully detained. Eyvin has spent his 
entire life fighting for others. And in fact, even while he has 
been detained in prison in Venezuela, he has been advocating 
for the rights of other detainees.
    And when they meet with a special envoy, they say, can 
Eyvin come in with me because he knows my case. He knows what's 
going on, and I want him here with me. He's probably now 
wondering whether anyone is fighting for him, and this 
resolution would say that, yes, we are fighting for you, Eyvin.
    The Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs has been 
working tirelessly to secure Eyvin's release. But the momentum 
has stalled. Congressional attention is needed now more than 
ever, and this resolution demonstrates that Congress wants 
Eyvin home in Los Angeles. Los Angeles wants Eyvin home, and 
his father, Pedro, wants him home.
    His father, Pedro, said, he's my son, but he's also a son 
of this country. And we are hoping that the Administration will 
use every tool in their toolkit to secure his immediate release 
because Eyvin is worth it. Everyone's child is worth it.
    So I urge my colleagues to support this resolution which is 
bipartisan and join me in working to bring Eyvin home. Thank 
you, and I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back. Any further 
discussion on the resolution? Ms. Young Kim is recognized.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady is recognized.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Chairman. I strongly 
support House Resolution 578 which I was proud to introduce 
with Representative Kamlager-Dove. I want to thank you for your 
leadership on this issue.
    This resolution will send a strong, unified message from 
Congress for our support for Eyvin and his family as we call on 
Biden Administration to act. And I also want to thank Chairman 
McCaul for joining me in a meeting with Eyvin's father, Pedro, 
just last week. I also had the opportunity to meet with Eyvin's 
brother and the whole family back home last week as well.
    It's a heartbreaking story. Eyvin is a beloved son, 
brother, uncle, friend, attorney, a Los Angeles native. And he 
attended UCLA, even though he went to my rivalry school. I went 
to USC.
    But we are working on this together to bring him home. He 
has worked in Los Angeles County public defender's office since 
2006, a very long time doing his work, representing our 
community and the Los Angeles community. Eyvin Hernandez was on 
a 2-week vacation to Colombia when he was kidnaped while asking 
for directions close to the Venezuelan border.
    He was taken against his will. He was asked to pay a bribe 
to cross into Venezuela. And when he refused, he was then 
accused of being a spy.
    He's being held on fabricated criminal association and 
conspiracy charges. Eyvin has been wrongfully detained by the 
Venezuelan regime for over a year now. It's past time to bring 
Eyvin home.
    I was proud to recently join Representative Kamlager-Dove 
to introduce a resolution calling for Eyvin's immediate 
release. This resolution again will send a strong message from 
Congress for our support for Eyvin and his family as well as we 
call on Biden Administration to act more swiftly. Even though 
there is some people paying attention to it, we think it's not 
enough.
    So I'll continue to do my part to bring Eyvin home. And 
like I said, we keep working with his family to bring him home 
and on this resolution. And I call my colleagues to also 
support this effort.
    And I urge President Biden to give this case the attention 
that it deserves. And I want to thank the chairman again for 
considering this legislation in today's markup. Thank you for 
your leadership again, my colleague and friend, Kamlager-Dove. 
And I urge everyone to vote yes, and I yield the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields. Any further 
discussion on the resolution? Ranking member is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you. I stand in strong support of 
Representative Kamlager-Dove's H. Res. 578 resolution which 
calls for the immediate release of Eyvin Hernandez, a U.S. 
citizen and career public defender. For 15 months, Mr. 
Hernandez has been wrongfully detained by the government of 
Venezuela without due process or any assurances of when he 
might be released.
    Without a doubt, this congressional body stands divided on 
many issues. But assuring the safety of American citizens 
abroad is one where we cannot afford for our opinions to 
diverge. The bipartisan support of this resolution speaks to 
our collective responsibility and our commitment to elevating 
the priority of Mr. Hernandez's safe return.
    It is essential that we endeavor to secure the safe return 
of Mr. Hernandez along with all other victims of wrongful 
detention overseas. Mr. Hernandez has dedicated his career to 
defending those who do not have the means to defend themselves. 
It is not lost on me the irony that since March 2022, Mr. 
Hernandez has gone from managing case loads as a public 
defender to being unlawfully detained.
    And as we heard from Representative Kamlager-Dove 
representing and defending others who are incarcerated with him 
in Venezuela. Even under these circumstances, he is doing the 
Lord's work and helping. It just tells you who he is.
    I've been following Mr. Hernandez's case since last April. 
And last week, I had the privilege of speaking with Mr. 
Hernandez's father. We walked and we talked for a while in my 
office and in the hall.
    And I learned from his family about his contribution that 
he makes to the community. I learned how he has dedicated his 
life and a career in public service and practicing law for the 
public good. So we must honor Mr. Hernandez's passion for 
justice and preserving the rights granted to him and his fellow 
Americans by using that same passion to encourage this 
Administration to use every tool at their disposal for his 
swift return.
    This is a matter that demands urgency. And as we sit in 
this room today, Mr. Hernandez is actively being denied the 
rights that he ordinarily would be working to secure for 
others. So to the Hernandez family and loved ones, know that we 
stand with you. We stand with him.
    We see you. We hear you. We thank you. And we will continue 
to advocate for and on Mr. Hernandez's behalf. So I encourage 
all of my colleagues to stand with me in supporting this 
resolution, and I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Any further 
discussion on the resolution? Let me just thank Ms. Kamlager-
Dove for bring this resolution forward.
    I also had the opportunity to meet with Eyvin Hernandez's 
father, Pedro. Very powerful, moving experience, emotional. And 
honestly, Mr. Ranking Member, this appears these resolutions 
are happening way too often now.
    Mr. Meeks. Yes.
    Chairman McCaul. It seems like this Congress, we've brought 
several of these now, whether it be Russia, China. I have a 
Texan on death row in China for a bogus drug charge. Iran, we 
have many American citizens in Iranian prisons.
    North Korea, now we have another solider now. And of 
course, in Afghanistan we have many. And it's important that 
Congress stand up in these situations and say to the family 
that we hear you and to tell Eyvin that Congress cares about 
you and we'll do everything in our power to bring him home 
safely.
    And I met with our hostage team at the State Department. 
They're very good at what they do. And I look forward to 
working with them and you in bringing this to a conclusion and 
bring Eyvin home.
    And I think it does not go without notice sort of the irony 
of a public defender being incarcerated with other defendants 
unjustly accused, taking up their cause. It says a lot about 
his moral character and the person that he truly is that I know 
his father is so proud of. And so I fully support this.
    Thank you for bringing this, and we'll get it to the floor 
as soon as possible. But sending a message again to the family 
and to Eyvin and to Maduro who's responsible for this. We're 
not going to sit back idly and take this.
    We're going to go on the offensive, and Congress will do 
everything in its power to return its son home to Los Angeles. 
So with that, there being no further discussion on the 
resolution, the committee will move to consideration of 
amendments. Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
    There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the 
Kamlager-Dove amendment to the nature of a substitute.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    I now move that committee report H. Res. 578 as amended to 
the House with a favorable recommendation.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the 
motion is agreed to.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table. Staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming 
changes. This is the last----
    Mr. Mast [presiding]. Pursuant to notice, I now call up 
H.R. 4825, the No Illegal Oil from Russia Act. The bill was 
circulated in advance, and the clerk shall designate the bill.
    [The Bill H.R. 4825 follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    
    The Clerk. H.R. 4825, a bill to require the imposition of 
sanctions and other measures related to the Russian oil price 
cap policy, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate 
and House of Representatives----
    Mr. Mast. Without objection, the first reading of the bill 
is dispensed with, and the bill is considered as read and open 
to amendment at any point. Is there any discussion on the bill? 
Chair now recognizes Ms. Dean for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank Chairman 
McCaul and Ranking Member Meeks. I rise in support of my bill, 
H.R. 4825, the No Illegal Oil from Russia Act.
    It has now been 17 months since Putin and Russia began its 
unjust illegal war in Ukraine. We cannot allow this war to 
become a stalemate. We cannot lose sight of the terrible toll 
each day of this war and what it exacts on Ukraine and her 
people.
    According to the United Nations, more than 9,000 civilians 
including more than 500 children have been killed since the 
start of the invasion. Russia has escalated attacks on 
Ukrainian grain, threatening a global food crisis. This 
devastation must end.
    We know that Russian oil exports are critical for financing 
their unjust illegal war in Ukraine. And that is why the United 
States and many of our allies, including the European Union, 
U.K., Australia, and Canada, have banned imports of Russian oil 
completely. Further, the United States worked with G-7 to 
created a price cap on Russian oil.
    Under the price cap policy, the United States and other 
members of the coalition can only ship Russian oil that is sold 
at or below the 60 dollar per barrel crude oil price. The 
intent of the price cap is to hurt Russian profits that are 
fueling their unjust war while maintaining stable global energy 
markets, preserving energy availability and affordability for 
emerging markets. The price cap was implemented just last year 
in December 2022, and the data suggests it has been highly 
effective at curtailing Russian oil profits.
    Nevertheless, this month the price of Russian crude oil has 
breached the 60 dollar per barrel threshold. Part of the reason 
of that price cap policy may no longer be working as 
effectively is why Russian oil has historically been dependent 
on western shipping services. Reporting suggests that Russia is 
now using a shadow fleet to evade sanctions and transport oil 
above the price cap, profiting illegally.
    That is why I have introduced this bill, No Illegal Oil 
from Russia Act. First, this bill requires the Secretary of 
State and the Secretary of Treasury to submit a report on how 
to enhance international compliance with the Russian oil price 
cap policy. Second, this bill requires the Secretary of State 
in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury and 
Secretary of Energy to report on the global economic impact of 
the Russian oil price cap policy.
    Finally, this bill requires the President to sanction 
foreign vessels that knowingly transport Russian oil over the 
price cap. While this step is significant, it is increasingly 
necessary to ensure we effectively cap Russian oil revenues. I 
thank the chairman and ranking member for their support for 
this important legislation. Further, I thank Representatives 
Barr and Keating for co-sponsoring this bill. And with that, 
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Mast. The gentlelady yields. Is there any further 
discussion? Chair now recognizes ranking member, Mr. Meeks, for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you. Last year, the Biden Administration 
was presented with an impossible problem. Russia's petroleum 
experts were fueling, feeding, and financing its illegal and 
reprehensible invasion of Ukraine.
    But certain efforts to boycott Russian oil were only 
driving global petroleum prices higher, thereby indirectly 
aiding the Russian economy as some nations continued to 
purchase Urals oil while the American middle class was getting 
hit by prices at the pump. The Biden Administration developed 
an ingenious solution. Allow some Russian oil to come to the 
market with a price cap on it.
    This had the dual effect of starving the Kremlin of funds 
to support its immoral and imperial war but also allowing 
enough oil to come to the global market to ensure prices came 
down and stayed reasonable for consumers. Finally, the Biden 
Administration showed the diplomatic skills that come with 
careful and close coordination with allies to get the G-7 to 
agree to this plan. The plan has worked incredibly well.
    Urals oil continues to be priced at a significant discount 
compared to Brent oil. Gas prices, while higher than idea, are 
nowhere near 2022 peaks. The Ukrainian effort and the American 
consumers have both won from the price cap.
    But the struggle is not over. This month, the average Urals 
oil price went above the G-7 price cap, indicating continued 
and significant demand for Russian petroleum products. Now this 
does not mean the price cap is not working.
    Russian oil is still trading at a significant discount. But 
it does mean that we should look to bolster the 
Administration's enforcement tools here. Broad secondary 
sanctions will not work.
    Countries need energy and will look to purchase it from 
major suppliers. More importantly, the price of oil would spike 
the American middle class and counter intuitively helping the 
Kremlin as the oil price increased. But selective sanctions 
would be effective at the margin.
    New reports have documented how certain ships are 
transporting Russian oil almost certainly above the price cap 
and lying about their location to hide this fact. These ships 
should be sanctioned. This should send a clear message about 
the cost of such deceitful behavior and would cause the price 
of Russian euros to dip without catering supply.
    Under Representative Dean's thoughtful legislation, the 
Administration would retain flexibility to waive sanctions 
where appropriate to continue to grease the wheels of the 
shipping and energy the logistics economy. But the threat of 
sanctions will deter some ships from carrying Russian oil above 
the price cap and will actually strengthen the negotiating 
position of companies buying the Russian oil which will lower 
prices. So I want to congratulate Representative Dean and 
Representative Barr for thoughtful approach her and urge all of 
my colleagues to support their legislation. I yield back.
    Mr. Mast. The gentleman yields back. Is there any further 
discussion on the bill? There being no further discussion of 
the bill, the committee will move to consideration of 
amendments. Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
    There being no amendments, I move the committee report H.R. 
4825 to the House with a favorable recommendation.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the 
motion is agreed to.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table and staff is authorized to make any technical and 
conforming changes. The committee will recess until 5 p.m. when 
we will take record votes. Committee stands in recess.
    [Whereupon, at 2:46 p.m., the committee recessed, to 
reconvene at 5 p.m., the same day.]
    Chairman McCaul [presiding]. The Committee postponed 
further proceedings on the roll call vote on the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute offered by Representative Huizenga 
to H.R. 4619 on which the ayes have prevailed by a voice vote.
    The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Representative Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Smith votes aye.
    Representative Wilson?
    Mr. Wilson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Wilson votes aye.
    Representative Perry?
    Mr. Perry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Perry votes aye.
    Representative Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Issa votes aye.
    Representative Wagner?
    Mrs. Wagner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Wagner votes aye.
    Representative Mast?
    Mr. Mast. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mast votes aye.
    Representative Buck?
    Mr. Buck. Aye.
    The Clerk. Buck votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. Jackson of Texas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
    Representative Young Kim?
    Mrs. Kim of California. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kim votes aye.
    Representative Salazar?
    Mrs. Salazar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Salazar votes aye.
    Representative Huizenga?
    Mr. Huizenga. Aye.
    The Clerk. Huizenga votes aye.
    Representative Radewagen?
    Mrs. Radewagen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Radewagen votes aye.
    Representative Hill? Hill?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Representative Davidson?
    Mr. Davidson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Davidson votes aye.
    Representative Baird?
    Mr. Baird. Aye.
    The Clerk. Baird votes aye.
    Representative Waltz? Waltz?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Representative Kean?
    Mr. Kean. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kean votes aye.
    Representative Lawler?
    Mr. Lawler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Lawler votes aye.
    Representative Mills? Mills?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. 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.]
    The Clerk. Representative Self?
    Mr. Self. Aye.
    The Clerk. Self votes aye.
    Ranking Member Meeks?
    Mr. Meeks. Aye.
    The Clerk. Meeks votes aye.
    Representative Sherman?
    Mr. Sherman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Sherman votes aye.
    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.]
    The Clerk. Representative Titus?
    Ms. Titus. Aye.
    The Clerk. Titus votes aye.
    Representative Lieu?
    Mr. Lieu. Aye.
    The Clerk. Lieu votes aye.
    Representative Wild? Wild?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Representative Phillips? Phillips?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. 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?
    Ms. Jacobs. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jacobs votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Representative Jonathan Jackson?
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
    Representative Kamlager-Dove?
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kamlager-Dove votes aye.
    Representative Costa?
    Mr. Costa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Costa votes aye.
    Representative Crow?
    Mr. Crow. Aye.
    The Clerk. Crow votes aye.
    Representative Schneider?
    Mr. Schneider. Aye.
    The Clerk. Schneider votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman McCaul. The Chairman votes aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes aye.
    Chairman McCaul. Are there other members in the room who 
wish to have their vote recorded?
    Mr. James?
    Mr. James. Mr. Chairman, how was James reported?
    Chairman McCaul. Has Mr. James----
    The Clerk. He is not recorded.
    Mr. James. Mr. James votes aye.
    Chairman McCaul. Good job.
    The Clerk. James votes aye.
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Castro?
    Mr. Castro. I vote aye.
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Phillips?
    Mr. Phillips. Mr. Phillips votes aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Castro votes aye. Mr. Phillips votes aye.
    Chairman McCaul. Any members who wish to change their vote?
    The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 46 and the noes are 
zero.
    Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed 
to.
    There being no further amendments, the question now occurs 
on reporting H.R. 4619 as amended favorably to the House.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    All those oppose 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 postponed further proceedings on the roll 
call vote on the Amendment offered by Representative Meeks to 
Representative Kim's Amendment in the nature of a substitute on 
which the noes have prevailed by voice vote.
    The question now occurs on agreeing to the Meeks Amendment. 
The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Representative Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Smith votes no.
    Representative Wilson?
    Mr. Wilson. No.
    The Clerk. Wilson votes no.
    Representative Perry?
    Mr. Perry. No.
    The Clerk. Perry votes no.
    Representative Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Issa votes no.
    Representative Wagner?
    Mrs. Wagner. No.
    The Clerk. Wagner votes no.
    Representative Mast?
    Mr. Mast. No.
    The Clerk. Mast votes no.
    Representative Buck?
    Mr. Buck. No.
    The Clerk. Buck votes no.
    Representative Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. No.
    The Clerk. Burchett votes no.
    Representative Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Green votes no.
    Representative Barr?
    Mr. Barr. No.
    The Clerk. Barr votes no.
    Representative Ronny Jackson?
    Mr. Jackson of Texas. No.
    The Clerk. Ronnie Jackson votes no.
    Representative Young Kim?
    Mrs. Kim of California. No.
    The Clerk. Kim votes no.
    Representative Salazar?
    Mrs. Salazar. No.
    The Clerk. Salazar votes no.
    Representative Huizenga?
    Mr. Huizenga. No.
    The Clerk. Huizenga votes no.
    Representative Radewagen?
    Mrs. Radewagen. No.
    The Clerk. Radewagen votes no.
    Representative Hill? Hill?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Representative Davidson?
    Mr. Davidson. No.
    The Clerk. Davidson votes no.
    Representative Baird?
    Mr. Baird. No.
    The Clerk. Baird votes no.
    Representative Waltz? Waltz?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Representative Kean?
    Mr. Kean. No.
    The Clerk. Kean votes No.
    Representative Lawler?
    Mr. Lawler. No.
    The Clerk. Lawler votes no.
    Representative Mills? Mills?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Representative McCormick?
    Mr. McCormick. No.
    The Clerk. McCormick votes no.
    Representative Moran?
    Mr. Moran. No.
    The Clerk. Moran votes no.
    Representative James?
    Mr. James. No.
    The Clerk. James votes no.
    Representative Self?
    Mr. Self. No.
    The Clerk. Self votes no.
    Ranking Member Meeks?
    Mr. Meeks. Aye.
    The Clerk. Meeks votes aye.
    Representative Sherman?
    Mr. Sherman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Sherman votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. Castro. Aye.
    The Clerk. Castro votes aye.
    Representative Titus?
    Ms. Titus. Aye.
    The Clerk. Titus votes aye.
    Representative Lieu?
    Mr. Lieu. Aye.
    The Clerk. Lieu votes aye.
    Representative Wild? Wild?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. 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?
    Ms. Jacobs. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jacobs votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Representative Jonathan Jackson?
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
    Representative Kamlager-Dove?
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kamlager-Dove votes aye.
    Representative Costa?
    Mr. Costa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Costa votes aye.
    Representative Crow?
    Mr. Crow. Aye.
    The Clerk. Crow votes aye.
    Representative Schneider?
    Mr. Schneider. Aye.
    The Clerk. Schneider votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman McCaul. The Chairman votes no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
    Chairman McCaul. Are there other members in the room who 
wish to have their vote recorded?
    Are there any members who wish to change their vote?
    The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 22 and the noes are 
24.
    Chairman McCaul. In the opinion of the Chair the noes have 
it. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute Number 25 offered by Representative Kim.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. And the 
amendment is agreed to.
    There being no further amendments to dispense with, the 
question now occurs on reporting H.R. 4716 as amended favorably 
to the House.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it and the motion 
is agreed to.
    Mr. Meeks. Roll call vote.
    Chairman McCaul. You know, we're going to have votes on the 
floor. You sure? If you want to stay here late. It's up to you 
Mr. Ranking Member.
    All right. We'll go. A recorded vote has been requested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Representative Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Smith votes aye.
    Representative Wilson?
    Mr. Wilson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Wilson votes aye.
    Representative Perry?
    Mr. Perry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Perry votes aye.
    Representative Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Issa votes aye.
    Representative Wagner?
    Mrs. Wagner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Wagner votes aye.
    Representative Mast?
    Mr. Mast. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mast votes aye.
    Representative Buck?
    Mr. Buck. Aye.
    The Clerk. Buck votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. Jackson of Texas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ronnie Jackson votes aye.
    Representative Young Kim?
    Mrs. Kim of California. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kim votes aye.
    Representative Salazar?
    Mrs. Salazar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Salazar votes aye.
    Representative Huizenga?
    Mr. Huizenga. Aye.
    The Clerk. Huizenga votes aye.
    Representative Radewagen?
    Mrs. Radewagen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Radewagen votes aye.
    Representative Hill? Hill?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Representative Davidson?
    Mr. Davidson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Davidson votes aye.
    Representative Baird?
    Mr. Baird. Aye.
    The Clerk. Baird votes aye.
    Representative Waltz? Waltz?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Representative Kean?
    Mr. Kean. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kean votes aye.
    Representative Lawler?
    Mr. Lawler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Lawler votes aye.
    Representative Mills? Mills?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Representative McCormick?
    Mr. McCormick. Aye.
    The Clerk. McCormick votes aye.
    Representative Moran?
    Mr. Moran. Aye.
    The Clerk. Moran votes aye.
    Representative James?
    Mr. James. Aye.
    The Clerk. James votes aye.
    Representative Self?
    Mr. Self. Aye.
    The Clerk. Self votes aye.
    Ranking Member Meeks?
    Mr. Meeks. No.
    The Clerk. Meeks votes no.
    Representative Sherman?
    Mr. Sherman. No.
    The Clerk. Sherman votes no.
    Representative Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Nay.
    The Clerk. Connolly votes no.
    Representative Keating?
    Mr. Keating. No.
    The Clerk. Keating votes no.
    Representative Bera?
    Mr. Bera. No.
    The Clerk. Bera votes no.
    Representative Castro?
    Mr. Castro. No.
    The Clerk. Castro votes no.
    Representative Titus?
    Ms. Titus. No.
    The Clerk. Titus votes no.
    Representative Lieu?
    Mr. Lieu. No.
    The Clerk. Lieu votes no.
    Representative Wild? Wild?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Representative Phillips?
    Mr. Phillips. No.
    The Clerk. Phillips votes no.
    Representative Allred?
    Mr. Allred. No.
    The Clerk. Allred votes no.
    Representative Andy Kim?
    Mr. Kim of New Jersey. No.
    The Clerk. Kim votes no.
    Representative Jacobs?
    Ms. Jacobs. No.
    The Clerk. Jacobs votes no.
    Representative Manning?
    Ms. Manning. No.
    The Clerk. Manning votes no.
    Representative Cherfilus-McCormick?
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. No.
    The Clerk. Cherfilus-McCormick votes no.
    Representative Stanton?
    Mr. Stanton. No.
    The Clerk. Stanton votes no.
    Representative Dean?
    Ms. Dean. No.
    The Clerk. Dean votes no.
    Representative Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. No.
    The Clerk. Moskowitz votes no.
    Representative Jonathan Jackson?
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. No.
    The Clerk. Jackson votes no.
    Representative Kamlager-Dove?
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. No.
    The Clerk. Kamlager-Dove votes no.
    Representative Costa?
    Mr. Costa. No.
    The Clerk. Costa votes no.
    Representative Crow?
    Mr. Crow. No.
    The Clerk. Crow votes no.
    Representative Schneider?
    Mr. Schneider. No.
    The Clerk. Schneider votes no.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman McCaul. The Chairman votes aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes aye.
    Chairman McCaul. Have all members voted?
    Mr. Hill?
    Mr. Hill. Aye.
    The Clerk. Representative Hill votes aye.
    Chairman McCaul. Does any member wish to change his or her 
vote?
    The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 25, the noes are 22.
    Chairman McCaul. 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 postponed further proceedings on the roll 
call vote on the amendment offered by Representative Meeks 
Number 43 to Representative Kean amendment in the nature of a 
substitute on which the noes have prevailed by voice vote.
    The question now occurs on agreeing to the Meeks amendment. 
The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Representative Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Smith votes no.
    Representative Wilson?
    Mr. Wilson. No.
    The Clerk. Wilson votes no.
    Representative Perry?
    Mr. Perry. No.
    The Clerk. Perry votes no.
    Representative Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Issa votes no.
    Representative Wagner?
    Mrs. Wagner. No.
    The Clerk. Wagner votes no.
    Representative Mast?
    Mr. Mast. No.
    The Clerk. Mast votes no.
    Representative Buck?
    Mr. Buck. No.
    The Clerk. Buck votes no.
    Representative Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. No.
    The Clerk. Burchett votes no.
    Representative Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Green votes no.
    Representative Barr?
    Mr. Barr. No.
    The Clerk. Barr votes no.
    Representative Ronny Jackson?
    Mr. Jackson of Texas. No.
    The Clerk. Jackson votes no.
    Representative Young Kim?
    Mrs. Kim of California. No.
    The Clerk. Kim votes no.
    Representative Salazar?
    Mrs. Salazar. No.
    The Clerk. Salazar votes no.
    Representative Huizenga?
    Mr. Huizenga. No.
    The Clerk. Huizenga votes no.
    Representative Radewagen?
    Mrs. Radewagen. No.
    The Clerk. Radewagen votes no.
    Representative Hill?
    Mr. Hill. No.
    The Clerk. Hill votes no.
    Representative Davidson?
    Mr. Davidson. No.
    The Clerk. Davidson votes no.
    Representative Baird?
    Mr. Baird. No.
    The Clerk. Baird votes no.
    Representative Waltz? Waltz?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Representative Kean?
    Mr. Kean. No.
    The Clerk. Kean votes No.
    Representative Lawler?
    Mr. Lawler. No.
    The Clerk. Lawler votes no.
    Representative Mills? Mills?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Representative McCormick?
    Mr. McCormick. No.
    The Clerk. McCormick votes no.
    Representative Moran?
    Mr. Moran. No.
    The Clerk. Moran votes no.
    Representative James?
    Mr. James. No.
    The Clerk. James votes no.
    Representative Self?
    Mr. Self. No.
    The Clerk. Self votes no.
    Ranking Member Meeks?
    Mr. Meeks. Yes.
    The Clerk. Meeks votes aye.
    Representative Sherman?
    Mr. Sherman. Yes.
    The Clerk. Sherman votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. Castro. Aye.
    The Clerk. Castro votes aye.
    Representative Titus?
    Ms. Titus. Aye.
    The Clerk. Titus votes aye.
    Representative Lieu?
    Mr. Lieu. Aye.
    The Clerk. Lieu votes aye.
    Representative Wild? Wild?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. 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?
    Ms. Jacobs. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jacobs votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Representative Jonathan Jackson?
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
    Representative Kamlager-Dove?
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kamlager-Dove votes aye.
    Representative Costa?
    Mr. Costa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Costa votes aye.
    Representative Crow?
    Mr. Crow. Aye.
    The Clerk. Crow votes aye.
    Representative Schneider?
    Mr. Schneider. Aye.
    The Clerk. Schneider votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman McCaul. The Chairman votes no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
    Chairman McCaul. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 22, the noes are 25.
    Chairman McCaul. In the opinion of the Chair the noes have 
it. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute Number 21 offered by Representative Kean.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    There being no further amendments to dispense with the 
question now occurs on report H.R. 4715 as amended favorably to 
the House.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    All those oppose signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. The motion is 
agreed to.
    Mr. Meeks. Roll call vote
    Chairman McCaul. A roll call vote has been requested. The 
clerk will call the role.
    The Clerk. Representative Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Yes.
    The Clerk. Smith votes aye.
    Representative Wilson?
    Mr. Wilson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Wilson votes aye.
    Representative Perry?
    Mr. Perry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Perry votes aye.
    Representative Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Issa votes aye.
    Representative Wagner?
    Mrs. Wagner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Wagner votes aye.
    Representative Mast?
    Mr. Mast. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mast votes aye.
    Representative Buck?
    Mr. Buck. Aye.
    The Clerk. Buck votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. Jackson of Texas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ronnie Jackson votes aye.
    Representative Young Kim?
    Mrs. Kim of California. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kim votes aye.
    Representative Salazar?
    Mrs. Salazar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Salazar votes aye.
    Representative Huizenga?
    Mr. Huizenga. Aye.
    The Clerk. Huizenga votes aye.
    Representative Radewagen?
    Mrs. Radewagen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Radewagen votes aye.
    Representative Hill?
    Mr. Hill. Aye.
    The Clerk. Hill votes aye.
    Representative Davidson?
    Mr. Davidson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Davidson votes aye.
    Representative Baird?
    Mr. Baird. Aye.
    The Clerk. Baird votes aye.
    Representative Waltz? Waltz?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Representative Kean?
    Mr. Kean. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kean votes aye.
    Representative Lawler?
    Mr. Lawler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Lawler votes aye.
    Representative Mills? Mills?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Representative McCormick?
    Mr. McCormick. Aye.
    The Clerk. McCormick votes aye.
    Representative Moran?
    Mr. Moran. Aye.
    The Clerk. Moran votes aye.
    Representative James?
    Mr. James. Aye.
    The Clerk. James votes aye.
    Representative Self?
    Mr. Self. Aye.
    The Clerk. Self votes aye.
    Ranking Member Meeks?
    Mr. Meeks. No.
    The Clerk. Meeks votes no.
    Representative Sherman?
    Mr. Sherman. No.
    The Clerk. Sherman votes no.
    Representative Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Nay.
    The Clerk. Connolly votes no.
    Representative Keating?
    Mr. Keating. No.
    The Clerk. Keating votes no.
    Representative Bera?
    Mr. Bera. No.
    The Clerk. Bera votes no.
    Representative Castro?
    Mr. Castro. No.
    The Clerk. Castro votes no.
    Representative Titus?
    Ms. Titus. No.
    The Clerk. Titus votes no.
    Representative Lieu?
    Mr. Lieu. No.
    The Clerk. Lieu votes no.
    Representative Wild?
    Ms. Wild. No.
    The Clerk. Wild votes no.
    Representative Phillips?
    Mr. Phillips. No.
    The Clerk. Phillips votes no.
    Representative Allred?
    Mr. Allred. No.
    The Clerk. Allred votes no.
    Representative Andy Kim?
    Mr. Kim of New Jersey. No.
    The Clerk. Kim votes no.
    Representative Jacobs?
    Ms. Jacobs. No.
    The Clerk. Jacobs votes no.
    Representative Manning?
    Ms. Manning. No.
    The Clerk. Manning votes no.
    Representative Cherfilus-McCormick?
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. No.
    The Clerk. Cherfilus-McCormick votes no.
    Representative Stanton?
    Mr. Stanton. No.
    The Clerk. Stanton votes no.
    Representative Dean?
    Ms. Dean. No.
    The Clerk. Dean votes no.
    Representative Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. No.
    The Clerk. Moskowitz votes no.
    Representative Jonathan Jackson?
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. No.
    The Clerk. Jackson votes no.
    Representative Kamlager-Dove?
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. No.
    The Clerk. Kamlager-Dove votes no.
    Representative Costa?
    Mr. Costa. No.
    The Clerk. Costa votes no.
    Representative Crow?
    Mr. Crow. No.
    The Clerk. Crow votes no.
    Representative Schneider?
    Mr. Schneider. No.
    The Clerk. Schneider votes no.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman McCaul. The Chairman votes aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes aye.
    Chairman McCaul. Have all members voted?
    Does any member wish to change his or her vote?
    The clerk will report the tally.
    Mr. Mills?
    Mr. Mills. Yes.
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Mills votes aye.
    The Clerk. Representative Mills votes aye.
    Chairman McCaul. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 26, the noes are 23.
    Chairman McCaul. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it. 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 postponed further proceedings on the roll 
call vote on Amendment Number 45 offered by Representative 
Kamlager-Dove to H.R. 1456 on which the noes have prevailed by 
a voice vote.
    The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment. The 
clerk will call the role.
    The Clerk. Representative Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Smith votes no.
    Representative Wilson?
    Mr. Wilson. Nay.
    The Clerk. Wilson votes no.
    Representative Perry?
    Mr. Perry. No.
    The Clerk. Perry votes no.
    Representative Issa?
    Mr. Issa. No.
    The Clerk. Issa votes no.
    Representative Wagner?
    Mrs. Wagner. No.
    The Clerk. Wagner votes no.
    Representative Mast?
    Mr. Mast. No.
    The Clerk. Mast votes no.
    Representative Buck?
    Mr. Buck. No.
    The Clerk. Buck votes no.
    Representative Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. No.
    The Clerk. Burchett votes no.
    Representative Green?
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Green votes no.
    Representative Barr?
    Mr. Barr. No.
    The Clerk. Barr votes no.
    Representative Ronny Jackson?
    Mr. Jackson of Texas. No.
    The Clerk. Jackson votes no.
    Representative Young Kim?
    Mrs. Kim of California. No.
    The Clerk. Kim votes no.
    Representative Salazar?
    Mrs. Salazar. No.
    The Clerk. Salazar votes no.
    Representative Huizenga?
    Mr. Huizenga. No.
    The Clerk. Huizenga votes no.
    Representative Radewagen?
    Mrs. Radewagen. No.
    The Clerk. Radewagen votes no.
    Representative Hill?
    Mr. Hill. No.
    The Clerk. Hill votes no.
    Representative Davidson?
    Mr. Davidson. No.
    The Clerk. Davidson votes no.
    Representative Baird?
    Mr. Baird. No.
    The Clerk. Baird votes no.
    Representative Waltz? Waltz?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Representative Kean?
    Mr. Kean. No.
    The Clerk. Kean votes No.
    Representative Lawler?
    Mr. Lawler. No.
    The Clerk. Lawler votes no.
    Representative Mills? Mills?
    Mr. Mills. No.
    The Clerk. Mills votes no.
    Representative McCormick?
    Mr. McCormick. No.
    The Clerk. McCormick votes no.
    Representative Moran?
    Mr. Moran. No.
    The Clerk. Moran votes no.
    Representative James?
    Mr. James. No.
    The Clerk. James votes no.
    Representative Self?
    Mr. Self. No.
    The Clerk. Self votes no.
    Ranking Member Meeks?
    Mr. Meeks. Yes.
    The Clerk. Meeks votes aye.
    Representative Sherman?
    Mr. Sherman. Yes.
    The Clerk. Sherman votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. Castro. Aye.
    The Clerk. Castro votes aye.
    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?
    Ms. Jacobs. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jacobs votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Yes.
    The Clerk. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Representative Jonathan Jackson?
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
    Representative Kamlager-Dove?
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kamlager-Dove votes aye.
    Representative Costa?
    Mr. Costa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Costa votes aye.
    Representative Crow?
    Mr. Crow. Aye.
    The Clerk. Crow votes aye.
    Representative Schneider?
    Mr. Schneider. Aye.
    The Clerk. Schneider votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman McCaul. The Chairman votes no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes no.
    Chairman McCaul. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 23, the noes are 26.
    Chairman McCaul. In the opinion of the Chair the noes have 
it. The amendment is not agreed to.
    I ask unanimous consent to vacate the vote on Kamlager-Dove 
Number 46, which failed by voice vote.
    Hearing no objections, so ordered.
    There being no further amendments to dispense with, the 
question now occurs on reporting H.R. 1456 as amended favorably 
to the House.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed signify by saying no.
    That was loud. In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have 
it, surprisingly. And, the motion is agreed to.
    Mr. Meeks. Roll call.
    Chairman McCaul. Oh, my God. A recorded vote has been 
requested. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Representative Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Smith votes aye.
    Representative Wilson?
    Mr. Wilson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Wilson votes aye.
    Representative Perry?
    Mr. Perry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Perry votes aye.
    Representative Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Issa votes aye.
    Representative Wagner?
    Mrs. Wagner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Wagner votes aye.
    Representative Mast?
    Mr. Mast. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mast votes aye.
    Representative Buck?
    Mr. Buck. Aye.
    The Clerk. Buck votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. Jackson of Texas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
    Representative Young Kim?
    Mrs. Kim of California. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kim votes aye.
    Representative Salazar?
    Mrs. Salazar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Salazar votes aye.
    Representative Huizenga?
    Mr. Huizenga. Aye.
    The Clerk. Huizenga votes aye.
    Representative Radewagen?
    Mrs. Radewagen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Radewagen votes aye.
    Representative Hill?
    Mr. Hill. Yes.
    The Clerk. Hill votes aye.
    Representative Davidson?
    Mr. Davidson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Davidson votes aye.
    Representative Baird?
    Mr. Baird. Aye.
    The Clerk. Baird votes aye.
    Representative Waltz? Waltz?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Representative Kean?
    Mr. Kean. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kean votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. James. Aye.
    The Clerk. James votes aye.
    Representative Self?
    Mr. Self. Aye.
    The Clerk. Self votes aye.
    Ranking Member Meeks?
    Mr. Meeks. No.
    The Clerk. Meeks votes no.
    Representative Sherman?
    Mr. Sherman. No.
    The Clerk. Sherman votes no.
    Representative Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Nay.
    The Clerk. Connolly votes no.
    Representative Keating?
    Mr. Keating. No.
    The Clerk. Keating votes no.
    Representative Bera?
    Mr. Bera. No.
    The Clerk. Bera votes no.
    Representative Castro?
    Mr. Castro. No.
    The Clerk. Castro votes no.
    Representative Titus?
    Ms. Titus. No.
    The Clerk. Titus votes no.
    Representative Lieu?
    Mr. Lieu. No.
    The Clerk. Lieu votes no.
    Representative Wild?
    Ms. Wild. No.
    The Clerk. Wild votes no.
    Representative Phillips?
    Mr. Phillips. No.
    The Clerk. Phillips votes no.
    Representative Allred?
    Mr. Allred. No.
    The Clerk. Allred votes no.
    Representative Andy Kim?
    Mr. Kim of New Jersey. No.
    The Clerk. Kim votes no.
    Representative Jacobs?
    Ms. Jacobs. No.
    The Clerk. Jacobs votes no.
    Representative Manning?
    Ms. Manning. No.
    The Clerk. Manning votes no.
    Representative Cherfilus-McCormick?
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. No.
    The Clerk. Cherfilus-McCormick votes no.
    Representative Stanton?
    Mr. Stanton. No.
    The Clerk. Stanton votes no.
    Representative Dean?
    Ms. Dean. No.
    The Clerk. Dean votes no.
    Representative Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. No.
    The Clerk. Moskowitz votes no.
    Representative Jonathan Jackson?
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. No.
    The Clerk. Jackson votes no.
    Representative Kamlager-Dove?
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. No.
    The Clerk. Kamlager-Dove votes no.
    Representative Costa?
    Mr. Costa. No.
    The Clerk. Costa votes no.
    Representative Crow?
    Mr. Crow. No.
    The Clerk. Crow votes no.
    Representative Schneider?
    Mr. Schneider. No.
    The Clerk. Schneider votes no.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman McCaul. The Chairman votes aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes aye.
    On this vote the ayes are 26, the noes are 23.
    Chairman McCaul. In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have 
it. The motion is agreed to.
    Without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table. The staff is authorized to make any technical and 
conforming changes.
    The Committee postponed for the proceedings on reporting 
H.R. 4725 as amended favorably to the House on which the ayes 
prevailed by a voice vote.
    The question now occurs on reporting the measure to the 
House with a favorable recommendation. The clerk will call the 
role.
    The Clerk. Representative Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Smith votes aye.
    Representative Wilson?
    Mr. Wilson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Wilson votes aye.
    Representative Perry? Perry?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Representative Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Issa votes aye.
    Representative Wagner?
    Mrs. Wagner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Wagner votes aye.
    Representative Mast?
    Mr. Mast. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mast votes aye.
    Representative Buck?
    Mr. Buck. Aye.
    The Clerk. Buck votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. Jackson of Texas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
    Representative Young Kim?
    Mrs. Kim of California. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kim votes aye.
    Representative Salazar?
    Mrs. Salazar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Salazar votes aye.
    Representative Huizenga?
    Mr. Huizenga. Aye.
    The Clerk. Huizenga votes aye.
    Representative Radewagen?
    Mrs. Radewagen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Radewagen votes aye.
    Representative Hill?
    Mr. Hill. Aye.
    The Clerk. Hill votes aye.
    Representative Davidson?
    Mr. Davidson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Davidson votes aye.
    Representative Baird?
    Mr. Baird. Aye.
    The Clerk. Baird votes aye.
    Representative Waltz? Waltz?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Representative Kean?
    Mr. Kean. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kean votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. James. Aye.
    The Clerk. James votes aye.
    Representative Self?
    Mr. Self. Aye.
    The Clerk. Self votes aye.
    Ranking Member Meeks?
    Mr. Meeks. Aye.
    The Clerk. Meeks votes aye.
    Representative Sherman?
    Mr. Sherman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Sherman votes aye.
    Representative Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Connolly votes aye.
    Representative Keating?
    Mr. Keating. Aye.
    The Clerk. Keating votes aye.
    Representative Bera?
    Mr. Bera. Yes.
    The Clerk. Bera votes aye.
    Representative Castro?
    Mr. Castro. Yes.
    The Clerk. Castro votes aye.
    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?
    Ms. Jacobs. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jacobs votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Representative Jonathan Jackson?
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
    Representative Kamlager-Dove?
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kamlager-Dove votes aye.
    Representative Costa?
    Mr. Costa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Costa votes aye.
    Representative Crow?
    Mr. Crow. Aye.
    The Clerk. Crow votes aye.
    Representative Schneider?
    Mr. Schneider. Aye.
    The Clerk. Schneider votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman McCaul. The Chairman votes aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes aye.
    Chairman McCaul. Have all members voted? Mr. Waltz?
    Mr. Waltz. Aye.
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Waltz votes aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Waltz votes aye.
    Chairman McCaul. The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 49, the noes are zero.
    Chairman McCaul. In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have 
it. The motion is agreed to.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table. The staff is authorized to make any technical and 
conforming changes.
    The Committee postponed further proceedings on reporting 
H.R. 4517 as amended favorably to the House on which the ayes 
prevailed by a voice vote.
    The question now occurs on reporting the measure to the 
House with a favorable recommendation. The clerk will call the 
roll.
    The Clerk. Representative Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Smith votes aye.
    Representative Wilson?
    Mr. Wilson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Wilson votes aye.
    Representative Perry? Perry?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Representative Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Issa votes aye.
    Representative Wagner?
    Mrs. Wagner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Wagner votes aye.
    Representative Mast?
    Mr. Mast. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mast votes aye.
    Representative Buck?
    Mr. Buck. Aye.
    The Clerk. Buck votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. Jackson of Texas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
    Representative Young Kim?
    Mrs. Kim of California. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kim votes aye.
    Representative Salazar?
    Mrs. Salazar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Salazar votes aye.
    Representative Huizenga?
    Mr. Huizenga. Aye.
    The Clerk. Huizenga votes aye.
    Representative Radewagen?
    Mrs. Radewagen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Radewagen votes aye.
    Representative Hill?
    Mr. Hill. Aye.
    The Clerk. Hill votes aye.
    Representative Davidson?
    Mr. Davidson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Davidson votes aye.
    Representative Baird?
    Mr. Baird. Aye.
    The Clerk. Baird votes aye.
    Representative Waltz?
    Mr. Waltz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Waltz votes aye.
    Representative Kean?
    Mr. Kean. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kean votes aye.
    Representative Lawler?
    Mr. Lawler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Lawler votes aye.
    Representative Mills?
    Mr. Mills. I just want to say like quickly that I do 
support this. But, I will vote present as I feel it's a 
conflict of interest because I would benefit from it.
    The Clerk. Representative Mills votes present.
    Representative McCormick? McCormick?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Representative Moran?
    Mr. Moran. Aye.
    The Clerk. Moran votes aye.
    Representative James?
    Mr. James. Aye.
    The Clerk. James votes aye.
    Representative Self?
    Mr. Self. Aye.
    The Clerk. Self votes aye.
    Ranking Member Meeks?
    Mr. Meeks. Aye.
    The Clerk. Meeks votes aye.
    Representative Sherman?
    Mr. Sherman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Sherman votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. Castro. Aye.
    The Clerk. Castro votes aye.
    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?
    Ms. Jacobs. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jacobs votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Representative Jonathan Jackson?
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
    Representative Kamlager-Dove?
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kamlager-Dove votes aye.
    Representative Costa?
    Mr. Costa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Costa votes aye.
    Representative Crow?
    Mr. Crow. Aye.
    The Clerk. Crow votes aye.
    Representative Schneider?
    Mr. Schneider. Aye.
    The Clerk. Schneider votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman McCaul. The Chairman votes aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes aye.
    Chairman McCaul. Have all members voted? Does any member 
wish to change his or her vote?
    The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 47, the 
noes are zero and one voted present.
    Chairman McCaul. In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have 
it. The motion is agreed to.
    Without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table. The Staff is authorized to make any technical and 
conforming changes.
    I ask unanimous consent to vacate the recorded vote for 
Meeks Number 42 to H.R. 4691. The amendment failed by a voice 
vote. And without objection, so ordered.
    There being no further amendments to dispense with, the 
question now occurs on reporting H.R. 4691 favorably to the 
House.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    All those oppose signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. And the 
motion is agreed to.
    Mr. Meeks. Roll call vote.
    Chairman McCaul. A recorded vote has been requested. The 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Representative Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Smith votes aye.
    Representative Wilson?
    Mr. Wilson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Wilson votes aye.
    Representative Perry?
    Mr. Perry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Perry votes aye.
    Representative Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Issa votes aye.
    Representative Wagner?
    Mrs. Wagner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Wagner votes aye.
    Representative Mast?
    Mr. Mast. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mast votes aye.
    Representative Buck?
    Mr. Buck. Aye.
    The Clerk. Buck votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. Jackson of Texas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
    Representative Young Kim?
    Mrs. Kim of California. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kim votes aye.
    Representative Salazar?
    Mrs. Salazar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Salazar votes aye.
    Representative Huizenga?
    Mr. Huizenga. Aye.
    The Clerk. Huizenga votes aye.
    Representative Radewagen?
    Mrs. Radewagen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Radewagen votes aye.
    Representative Hill?
    Mr. Hill. Aye.
    The Clerk. Hill votes aye.
    Representative Davidson?
    Mr. Davidson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Davidson votes aye.
    Representative Baird?
    Mr. Baird. Aye.
    The Clerk. Baird votes aye.
    Representative Waltz?
    Mr. Waltz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Waltz votes aye.
    Representative Kean?
    Mr. Kean. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kean votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. James. Aye.
    The Clerk. James votes aye.
    Representative Self?
    Mr. Self. Aye.
    The Clerk. Self votes aye.
    Ranking Member Meeks?
    Mr. Meeks. No.
    The Clerk. Meeks votes no.
    Representative Sherman?
    Mr. Sherman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Sherman votes--sorry?
    Mr. Sherman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Sherman votes aye.
    Representative Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. No.
    The Clerk. Connolly votes no.
    Representative Keating?
    Mr. Keating. No.
    The Clerk. Keating votes no.
    Representative Bera?
    Mr. Bera. No.
    The Clerk. Bera votes no.
    Representative Castro?
    Mr. Castro. No.
    The Clerk. Castro votes no.
    Representative Titus?
    Ms. Titus. No.
    The Clerk. Titus votes no.
    Representative Lieu?
    Mr. Lieu. Aye.
    The Clerk. Lieu votes aye.
    Representative Wild?
    Ms. Wild. No.
    The Clerk. Wild votes no.
    Representative Phillips?
    Mr. Phillips. No.
    The Clerk. Phillips votes no.
    Representative Allred?
    Mr. Allred. No.
    The Clerk. Allred votes no.
    Representative Andy Kim?
    Mr. Kim of New Jersey. No.
    The Clerk. Kim votes no.
    Representative Jacobs?
    Ms. Jacobs. No.
    The Clerk. Jacobs votes no.
    Representative Manning?
    Ms. Manning. Aye.
    The Clerk. Manning votes aye.
    Representative Cherfilus-McCormick?
    Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick. No.
    The Clerk. Cherfilus-McCormick votes no.
    Representative Stanton?
    Mr. Stanton. Aye.
    The Clerk. Stanton votes aye.
    Representative Dean?
    Ms. Dean. No.
    The Clerk. Dean votes no.
    Representative Moskowitz?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Yes.
    The Clerk. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Representative Jonathan Jackson?
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. No.
    The Clerk. Jackson votes no.
    Representative Kamlager-Dove?
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. No.
    The Clerk. Kamlager-Dove votes no.
    Representative Costa?
    Mr. Costa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Costa votes aye.
    Representative Crow?
    Mr. Crow. No.
    The Clerk. Crow votes no.
    Representative Schneider?
    Mr. Schneider. Aye.
    The Clerk. Schneider votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman McCaul. The Chairman votes aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes aye.
    Chairman McCaul. Have all members voted? Does any member 
wish to change their votes?
    The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 34, the 
noes are 16.
    Chairman McCaul. In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have 
it. 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 postponed further proceedings on reporting 
H.R. 3152 favorably to the House in which the ayes prevailed by 
a voice vote.
    The question now occurs on reporting the measure to the 
House with a favorable recommendation. The clerk will call the 
roll.
    The Clerk. Representative Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Smith votes aye.
    Representative Wilson?
    Mr. Wilson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Wilson votes aye.
    Representative Perry?
    Mr. Perry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Perry votes aye.
    Representative Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Issa votes aye.
    Representative Wagner?
    Mrs. Wagner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Wagner votes aye.
    Representative Mast?
    Mr. Mast. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mast votes aye.
    Representative Buck?
    Mr. Buck. Aye.
    The Clerk. Buck votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. Jackson of Texas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
    Representative Young Kim?
    Mrs. Kim of California. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kim votes aye.
    Representative Salazar?
    Mrs. Salazar. Aye.
    The Clerk. Salazar votes aye.
    Representative Huizenga?
    Mr. Huizenga. Aye.
    The Clerk. Huizenga votes aye.
    Representative Radewagen?
    Mrs. Radewagen. Aye.
    The Clerk. Radewagen votes aye.
    Representative Hill?
    Mr. Hill. Aye.
    The Clerk. Hill votes aye.
    Representative Davidson?
    Mr. Davidson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Davidson votes aye.
    Representative Baird?
    Mr. Baird. Aye.
    The Clerk. Baird votes aye.
    Representative Waltz?
    Mr. Waltz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Waltz votes aye.
    Representative Kean?
    Mr. Kean. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kean votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. James. Aye.
    The Clerk. James votes aye.
    Representative Self?
    Mr. Self. Aye.
    The Clerk. Self votes aye.
    Ranking Member Meeks?
    Mr. Meeks. Aye.
    The Clerk. Meeks votes aye.
    Representative Sherman?
    Mr. Sherman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Sherman votes aye.
    Representative Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Connolly votes aye.
    Representative Keating?
    Mr. Keating. Aye.
    The Clerk. Keating votes aye.
    Representative Bera?
    Mr. Bera. Yes.
    The Clerk. Bera votes aye.
    Representative Castro?
    Mr. Castro. Aye.
    The Clerk. Castro votes aye.
    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?
    Ms. Jacobs. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jacobs votes aye.
    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?
    Mr. Moskowitz. Aye.
    The Clerk. Moskowitz votes aye.
    Representative Jonathan Jackson?
    Mr. Jackson of Illinois. Aye.
    The Clerk. Jackson votes aye.
    Representative Kamlager-Dove?
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Aye.
    The Clerk. Kamlager-Dove votes aye.
    Representative Costa? Costa?
    Mr. Costa. Aye.
    The Clerk. Costa votes aye.
    Representative Crow?
    Mr. Crow. Aye.
    The Clerk. Crow votes aye.
    Representative Schneider?
    Mr. Schneider. Aye.
    The Clerk. Schneider votes aye.
    Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman McCaul. The Chairman votes aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes aye.
    Chairman McCaul. Does any--have all members voted? Does any 
member wish to change their vote?
    The clerk will report the tally.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote the ayes are 50, the 
noes are zero.
    Chairman McCaul. In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have 
it. 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.
    This concludes consideration of the measures noticed by the 
Committee for today. I want to thank all the members.
    There being no further business to transact, the Committee 
stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:56 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] 


                                 VOTES
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


        MATERIALS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED FROM CHAIRMAN MCCAUL
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

                 MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD FROM MR. KEAN
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

               MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD FROM MR. DAVIDSON
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

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


                                 EXTRA
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]