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



                       MARKUP OF VARIOUS MEASURES

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

                                 MARKUP

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            OCTOBER 19, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-53

                               __________



        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs





                [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
               





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








                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

54-081PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023













                      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.Res. 559, Declaring it is the policy of the United States that 
  a nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran is not acceptable...........     2
Amendment to H. Res. 559 offered by Ms. Jacobs...................    18
H.R. 2973, the Maritime Act of 2023..............................    20
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2973 offerd by 
  Mrs. Wagner....................................................    28
Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Subsitute to H.R. 
  2973 offered by Mr. Castro.....................................    36
H.R. 5826, No Paydays for Hostage-Takers Act.....................    40
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 5826 offered by 
  Mr. Wilson.....................................................    53
Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 
  5826 offered by Ms. Jacobs.....................................    69
H.R. 340, Hamas International Financing Prevention Act...........    76
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 340 offered by 
  Mr. Mast.......................................................   103
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 340 offered by 
  Mr. Mast.......................................................   123
Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 
  340 offered by Ms. Jacobs......................................   141
H.R. 3266, Peace and Tolerance in Palestinian Education Act......   147
H.R. 3774, the SHIP Act..........................................   162
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 3774 offerd by 
  Mr. Lawler.....................................................   174
Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 
  3774 offered by Mr. Castro.....................................   191
Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 
  3774 offered by Mr. Phillips...................................   196
Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 
  3774 offered by Mr. Phillips...................................   199
H.R. 599, Urging the European Union to designate Hezbollah in its 
  entirety as a terrorist organization...........................   203
H.R. 1809, Block the Use of Transatlantic Technology in Iranian 
  Made Drones Act................................................   213
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1809 offered by 
  Mr. Keating....................................................   223

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................   242
Hearing Minutes..................................................   244
Hearing Attendance...............................................   245

    STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY

Statement submitted for the record from Representative Castro....   246
Statement submitted for the record from Representative Connolly..   247

                                 VOTES

Votes............................................................   249

                             MARKUP SUMMARY

Markup summary...................................................   262









 
                       MARKUP OF VARIOUS MEASURES

                       Thursday, October 19, 2023

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

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:33 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.Res. 
559, Declaring it is the policy of the United States that a 
nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran is not acceptable; H.R. 5826, 
No Paydays for Hostage-Takers Act; H.R. 340, Hamas 
International Financing Prevention Act; H.R. 3266, Peace and 
Tolerance in Palestinian Education Act; H.R. 3774, the SHIP 
Act; H.R. 2973, the Maritime Act of 2023; H.R. 599, Urging the 
European Union to designate Hezbollah in its entirety as a 
terrorist organization, and finally, H.R. 1809, Block the Use 
of Transatlantic Technology in Iranian Made Drones Act.
    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.
    I also want to notify members that we will be using a new 
electronic voting system today for the first time, and we'll do 
a test of that with members prior to the votes. So, I think 
that will save us a lot of time.
    So, with that, I'm going to move into the first bill to 
save time. I know both sides have conference at 11.
    So, pursuant to notice, I'll now call up H.Res. 559, 
Declaring it the policy of the United States that a nuclear 
Islamic Republic of Iran is not acceptable.
    The resolution was circulated in advance.
    The clerk shall designate the resolution.
    The Clerk. ``H.Res. 559, Declaring it is the policy of the 
United States that a nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran is not 
acceptable.''
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is 
dispensed with.
    The resolution is considered read and open to amendment at 
any point.
    [The resolution H.Res. 559 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Chairman McCaul. I now recognize myself for an opening 
Statement.
    Just today, we get a report that three suicide drones were 
launched at U.S. forces at the al-Tanf Garrison in eastern 
Syria earlier today. And earlier reports are now coming in of a 
possible drone attack on the U.S. base at the Green Village now 
as well.
    On October 7th, Israelis awoke to gunfire, rockets, and 
explosions surrounding them. Iranian-backed Hamas terrorists 
unleashed a brutal terrorist attack that led to the deadliest 
day in the history of Israel.
    At least 1500 Hamas terrorists broke through the border 
from Gaza into Israel and brutalized every person they 
encountered. Terrorists were kicking in doors, storming houses, 
massacring women, children, and elderly.
    At the same time, Hamas launched thousands of rockets into 
Israel, and as part of their barbaric assault, Hamas kidnapped 
at least 200 hostages and dragged them back into Gaza.
    I spoke with the Israeli Ambassador last week, and he 
personally told me about some of the horrible war crimes that 
Hamas committed. Dozens of babies were murdered. Many were 
found decapitated and burned. Holocaust survivors were 
kidnapped, and 260 people at a music festival were slaughtered. 
These ISIS-like atrocities will haunt the world forever.
    So, I would like to start with a moment of silence, as we 
remember the victims of this massacre, in honor of the lives 
that they lived.
    [Moment of silence.]
    Now, as Israel responds in self-defense, the United States 
stands strongly with our friend and ally as it protects itself 
from Iran-backed terrorism.
    This is a moment of moral clarity. Hamas has shown us 
exactly who they are. They have no regard for human life, 
whether it be young or old, Israeli or Palestinian.
    And they have consistently and significantly been enabled 
and funded by Iran. As Jake Sullivan noted last week, Iran has 
been providing funding, training, capabilities support, 
engagement, and contact with Hamas for years and years.
    And now, we are hearing reports of the five attempted 
suicide drone attacks in Syria and Iraq threatening our troops 
in the region as we speak.
    We need a robust response to this catastrophic war that 
protects the United States and our allies. That includes 
limiting the resources available to our adversaries and 
bolstering our deterrence against those actively trying to harm 
us.
    And that's why I have introduced my bipartisan resolution 
to State clearly, with no caveats, that it is the policy of the 
United States that a nuclear Iran is not acceptable.
    The resolution States that Iran must not be able to obtain 
a nuclear weapon under any circumstances, and the United States 
must use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a 
nuclear weapon.
    I would like to also talk just briefly about my trip to a 
kibbutz on the border of Israel and Gaza with the then-Speaker 
McCarthy just last year. In the month prior, they had 4500 
rockets fired. And everyone I met in that village was 
massacred, slaughtered. In the daycare center, the children I 
saw were slaughtered, shot to death, beheaded, and burned.
    And when the press says it did not happen, it did, because 
I've seen the pictures of the burned babies and the decapitated 
children and the blood at cribs, baby cribs. They're monsters 
and this needs to stop.
    Today, we will also consider Brian Mast's bill to impose 
sanctions on anyone supporting Hamas or Palestinian Islamic 
Jihad. Hamas just committed some of the worst crimes against 
humanity the world has ever seen. Any support to these war 
criminals is indefensible.
    And we will consider, also, Joe Wilson's bill, the No 
Paydays for Hostage-Takers Act, to deter any future hostage-
taking Iran and other U.S. adversaries. This bill pushes the 
Administration to impose Levinson Act sanctions on hostage-
taking. It also requires the Administration to deny visas for 
travel to certain sanctioned Iranian officials and urges the 
Secretary of State to block travel to Iran on U.S. passports.
    As Hamas holds over 200 innocent hostages in Iran--in Gaza, 
I should say--we are reminded again of the urgency of 
protecting Americans from more hostage-taking by Iran.
    I want to thank Mike Lawler for his bill, the SHIP Act, to 
address the significant amount of Iranian oil that is still 
being shipped and refined around the world. These oil revenues 
give Iran a lifeline that is used to fund its support to 
terrorists and proxies around the world. His bill is a vital 
tool to cutting this funding off to Iran.
    And with that, is there any further discussion on the 
resolution?
    Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I join your remarks in talking about the terrorist 
organization known as Hamas, the horrendous assault, killing, 
hostage-taking that took place on that Saturday, October the 
7th, and condemn it with everything that I have. And I think 
that we are all unanimously in accord with that.
    My remarks now are on H.Res. 559. This committee has a long 
history of working to halt Iran's nuclear program. We all know 
why the terrorist regime in Tehran should never ever obtain a 
nuclear weapon.
    In 2015, the United States entered into a multilateral 
diplomatic agreement which verifiably capped Iran to uranium 
enrichment at 3.67 percent; closed the plutonium pathway Arak; 
shipped Iran's highly enriched uranium stockpile out of the 
country; mothballed subterfuges, and provided for a robust IAEA 
oversight.
    Unfortunately, and however, since President Trump's hasty 
withdrawal from the JCPOA, the options to stop it from 
advancing even further to weapons grade, 90 percent highly 
enriched uranium are even more limited. Iran's nuclear program 
has now surged to extraordinarily dangerous levels.
    In August, the IAEA reported that Iran's stockpile of 60 
percent enriched uranium has grown since its May report. Iran 
now possesses almost 15 times the amount of enriched uranium 
allowed under the JCPOA.
    Furthermore, in September, Iran informed the IAEA of its 
decision to remove about one-third of the IAEA inspectors from 
the country.
    We are living in and this is a very dangerous moment in 
dealing with Iran's nuclear program. I would argue that we 
cannot take diplomacy off the table because every other option 
comes with a much higher risk.
    In May, White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan 
said the following, and I quote, ``We are also engaging Iran 
diplomatically regarding its nuclear program and we continue to 
believe that it was a tragic mistake to leave the deal with 
nothing at all to replace it. But we have made clear to Iran 
that it can never be permitted to obtain a nuclear weapon. And 
as President Biden has repeatedly reaffirmed, he will take the 
actions that are necessary to stand by this Statement, 
including by recognizing Israel's freedom of action.'' End 
quote.
    The resolution today complements the Biden Administration's 
policy of leaving all options on the table, and thereby, I am 
pleased to support it.
    The regime in Iran can never be allowed to obtain a nuclear 
weapon.
    I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. Is there any further discussion on the 
resolution?
    Mr. Mills is recognized.
    Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I just wanted to make a brief comment. And again, I 
appreciate Ranking Member Meeks' comments with regards to 
bipartisan support and efforts. And clearly, I respect my 
colleague greatly.
    But I will point out the fact that one of the things that 
continues to be discussed is that the increase in nuclear 
enrichment by Iran is somehow as a result of us removing 
ourselves from what was very much a failed resolution on JCPOA, 
also known as Resolution 2231.
    I would also note that, when we continue to try and look at 
it from a partisan perspective by saying that this was Trump's 
fault, or whatever, I would also like to note that we also had 
President Obama who released $1.7 billion in cash. In 2020, 
that led to an increase in Hezbollah's activities, as well as 
for every one of the Iranian proxy militias of Iraq. That 
resulted in more attacks by Qais Khazali, Hadi Al-Amiri, and 
the Hashd al-Shaabi against our U.S. embassies.
    So, I want to go ahead and say that we must make sure that 
we prevent a nuclear Iran. We must ensure that we hold our 
adversaries accountable. We must acknowledge Hamas, Houthis, 
the Hezbollah under General Hassan Nasrallah, as well as for 
the rest of the proxy militias of Iraq, as an enemy.
    And certainly, with the atrocities that have been committed 
in Israel, I do not think that it's a time to necessarily have 
to point out the partisanship of where this comes from, but 
even the General-Secretary of the U.N. Ban Ki-moon and General-
Secretary Guterres, both during their time as the head of U.N. 
said that midrange ballistic missiles were being transferred by 
Iran to the Houthis in Yemen, which a clear and direct 
violation of JCPOA.
    There must be accountability for those who actually violate 
these agreements, and we must be able to call it and lay the 
blame where it is without partisanship.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Any further discussion on the resolution.
    Mr. Castro is recognized.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman.
    I strongly oppose Iran's efforts to develop a nuclear 
weapon and support efforts to stop that from happening, as we 
all do. In fact, we did have a working strategy to do that 
called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. If the JCPOA was 
in effect today, Iran would have had real constraints on its 
nuclear capability and we would have had valuable time to 
figure out how to oppose its nuclear ambitions and other malign 
activities.
    I was extremely disappointed that the Trump Administration 
decided to remove these constraints on Iran's nuclear program 
by violating, and then, withdrawing from the JCPOA.
    I believe that, in this resolution, if we're discussing the 
threat that Iran's nuclear program poses, we need to be honest 
about how and why we got here.
    I, additionally, have some reservations about the language 
in this resolution. In particular, the language that States 
that the United States must, quote, ``use all means necessary 
to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.'' That 
language is categorical, and my concern is that it could be 
construed as language of an AUMF.
    I understand the value in making statements like this to 
provide leverage, but that's only relevant if there's an active 
diplomatic process to provide Iran an alternative. We must 
bring Iran back to the table, and I'm disappointed that this 
language is not paired with a strong call for diplomacy, so 
Iran has an opportunity to avoid conflict.
    I yield back, Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    This resolution is simply one to make clear what the policy 
of the United States is and to provide deterrence--to allow the 
diplomats, then, to do their job. It seems to me that if the 
Congress States unequivocally that a nuclear Iran is not 
acceptable, that will only empower our diplomats when they go 
to the negotiating table.
    With that, I recognize Mrs. Kim.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you for recognizing me, 
Chairman.
    I strongly support your resolution to declare that it is 
the policy of the United States that a nuclear Islamic Republic 
of Iran is unacceptable.
    Earlier this year, the International Atomic Energy Agency 
investigators found uranium particles enriched to 83.7 percent, 
and weapons grade uranium is 90 percent enriched.
    Just last month, Iran kicked out several IAEA inspectors. 
And even when the JCPOA was in place, it continued to develop 
its ballistic missile capabilities.
    Iran has made clear that its goal is to wipe Israel off the 
map. Its malign influence campaign and support for terrorist 
groups in the Middle East, such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and 
Palestinian Islamic Jihad, contributes to Iran's goal of wiping 
out Israel.
    And for far too long, we have not taken these threats 
seriously enough. Now, Iran is dangerously close to developing 
an atomic weapon and is more blatantly supporting attacks on 
the Israeli people.
    So, I join my colleagues in stating that a nuclear Islamic 
Republic of Iran is unacceptable, and is a direct threat to the 
United States, Israel, and other allies.
    So, I urge my colleagues to support your resolution, and I 
yield the balance of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields.
    Any further discussion?
    Ms. Manning is recognized.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Chairman Meeks and Ranking Member 
McCaul, for your leadership on this important issue.
    I am proud to support H.Res. 559, a bipartisan resolution I 
helped introduce with Chairman McCaul and colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, to make clear that we will never tolerate 
Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.
    Iran is the principal source of instability in the region. 
It is a major threat to our interests and remains the world's 
leading sponsor of terrorism, supporting terrorist groups like 
Hamas in their brutal quest to destroy our ally Israel.
    Make no mistake, Iran has been funding, training, and 
supporting Hamas and Hezbollah for years. They are a threat to 
Israel's very existence. We've seen the gruesome result of 
Iran's support of Hamas over the past 11 days.
    Yesterday, I met with the families of three people being 
held hostage by Hamas, including a 3-year-old girl whose 
parents were killed on October 7. The terror she must be 
facing, being held in Gaza alone, is unimaginable. This is the 
kind of terror Iran facilitates.
    And I am glad that the Administration has finally decided 
to no longer permit Iran to access the $6 billion in Iranian 
assets currently being held in restricted accounts in Qatar.
    An armed Iran with a nuclear weapon would represent an even 
greater threat entirely unacceptable to Israel and to the 
world. For the past few years, Iran has flagrantly violated the 
terms of the nuclear deal, blown past restrictions, continued 
to enrich uranium to dangerous levels--bringing it closer than 
ever to being able to produce a nuclear weapon.
    Iran has stockpiled uranium at or significantly above 60 
percent purity and has limited access and cooperation with 
international nuclear inspectors. As Iran approaches ever 
closer to the nuclear threshold, we must maintain and 
strengthen the strong sanctions we have in place, while making 
clear where we stand.
    That is why this resolution emphasizes that it is U.S. 
policy to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran using all means 
necessary, as well as to support our partners and allies, like 
Israel, in the face of such an existential threat. Sending a 
clear message that acquiring an illegal nuclear weapons 
capacity is unacceptable is all about deterring Iran, not 
seeking confrontation or war with them.
    Mr. Chairman, colleagues on both sides of the aisle should 
agree that it is absolutely in our interest to restrain Iran's 
nuclear ambitions and in the interest of a more stable, secure, 
and peaceful region.
    That is why I urge all members to join me in supporting the 
resolution, and I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
    Any further discussion?
    Mr. Mast is recognized.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman, and I want to thank you, 
Chairman McCaul, and I want thank you, Ranking Member Meeks. 
You have put forward strong, unapologetic policies that is 
necessary for the United States of America to be the United 
States of America. That is what this is and that is what the 
world expects of us. Be strong, be unapologetic, recognize your 
friends, recognize your enemies. Stand unapologetically 
alongside of your friends. Stand unapologetically against the 
enemies of the United States of America and against those 
enemies of our allies. And that is what your policy seeks to 
do. I think the language in there, all needs necessary, is 
vitally important.
    Again, I think it is exactly what is expected of the 
powerhouse, the biggest heavy weight in the game, the United 
States of America, to use that kind of language, all means 
necessary. Were that not to be in there, are we, the United 
States of America, that the people, the world, the globe 
expects us to be, I would argue that we are not if we do not 
have the commitment to use all means necessary to stand against 
what we believe to be evil, wrong, the list of adjectives that 
we could use to describe what has been proven in these last 
couple of weeks that we knew, Iran, Hamas, Al Aqsa Martyrs 
Brigade, Palestinian Islam Jihad, Lion's Den, take your group, 
your pick of these groups of terrorists, Iranian tentacles, 
supported by the Palestinian people. Let's not gloss over that. 
These groups are absolutely supported by the Palestinian people 
from elementary school all the way up into the elderly. And so, 
yes, the best language that you could have used and I just want 
to applaud you on showing the strength that we need to be 
showing in this time and you have my support.
    Chairman McCaul. Thank you, sir. The gentleman yields. Any 
further discussion?
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member. 
I want to say that I support the spirit of this resolution. 
Yes, Iran should never have or have access to a nuclear weapon. 
There is no equivocation there. There is no equivocation there. 
And I want to remind my colleagues that the words we use in 
this committee matter. The messages coming from this committee 
matter.
    This is a time when tensions are high, but the stakes are 
also high and when we are inflammatory with or how we talk 
about confronting serious threats, there are realized 
consequences that hurt our ability to do that effectively. We 
have spent a lot of time in this committee reviewing the 
mistakes of the past. But what is the point in doing that if we 
are not applying those lessons to the present and the future?
    I hope that we continue to embrace the very important and 
critical role of diplomacy, the importance of maintaining 
guardrails for this democracy, because as a democracy, our 
foreign policy decisions are subject to checks and balances. 
And we have a duty to act on verifiable intelligence with 
thoughtful consideration.
    The worst thing we ever want is to embark upon reckless 
actions or rhetoric that can fuel wars, that can break 
alliances. We cannot afford to do those things. We cannot 
afford to jeopardize the parts of the status quo that keep 
Americans safe.
    Enemies of America, it is important that we elevate who 
they are and that we are honest about who they are. I hope at 
some point we have really thoughtful discussions about Russia 
and what it is doing to a democracy in this world. I believe 
that inflammatory language can turn into inflammatory actions, 
whether we intend it or not. And I do think it is important 
that we consider those things as we do the very critical, 
important business of this committee. It is just something that 
I urge my colleagues to keep in mind.
    And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Wilson is 
recognized.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And indeed, I hope the 
world sees the bipartisan nature of the votes that are going to 
be occurring today with our Chairman Mike McCaul, Ranking 
Member Greg Meeks, Republicans and Democrats, are 
substantially, not all, in agreement that there is an 
understanding whether we choose it or not that we are in a war 
of dictators with rule of gun opposing democracies with rule of 
law. And we know that sadly this began on February 24th, 2022 
when war criminal Putin invaded Ukraine and then on Putin's 
birthday, October 7, Iran invaded Israel. And we need to take 
this seriously and be working together and I am confident that 
we will.
    In working last week, I was at the NATO Parliamentary 
Assembly. I have never seen such unity with Sweden and Finland 
now joining, how incredible, 200 years of neutrality being 
given up to understand the threat of dictatorships around the 
world. And working together, I believe that we can and I know 
we will succeed.
    Additionally, we need to take our enemies seriously. They, 
just as Osama Bin Laden, in a fatwa, announced in 1999, his 
intent to kill as many Americans as he could, infidels, whether 
it be Jews or Christians or Buddhists or Hindus. And 
additionally, war criminal Putin had a treatise in August 2021 
that Ukraine did not exist. Sadly, we know the Chinese 
Communist Party announced that Taiwan does not exist. And we 
have Iran forcing a view which is perverse that Israel does not 
exist. And we need to take seriously the Hamas covenant. And 
this is a covenant of the Islamic resistance movement of August 
18, 1988 and this movement, and it States the Islamic 
resistance movement, known as Hamas. And among many of the 
horrible provisions they have of what they believe, it is death 
to America, death to Israel. But specifically it cites, I 
quote: ``The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems 
fight Jews and kill them. Then the Jews will hide behind rocks 
and trees. And the rocks and trees will cry out, oh, Moslem, 
there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.'' We need 
to take that seriously. I just cannot imagine anybody in 
America not understanding, and particularly, as Chairman McCaul 
cited, the horrendous burning of families alive, beheading of 
babies, bringing people out of their homes and shooting them as 
was done in Bucha, Ukraine and Sderot in Israel.
    We need to stand together and I look forward to continue, 
all of us, in a bipartisan manner to oppose a nuclear Iran 
which existential to Israel, but also to America and Western 
civilization. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further 
discussion?
    Mr. Crow is recognized.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you, Chairman. I join my colleagues in 
condemning the barbaric attacks of 2 weekends ago. It is 
intolerable and I stand with Israel and its right to defend 
itself and its goals to destroy the Hamas terrorist 
organization.
    We are in a dangerous time and we face threats that we must 
be firm and resolute against. The moment calls for leadership 
and responsibility, but that also means that our words matter. 
I believe that we are in a moment of moral clarity, but I also 
believe that we are in a moment of policy clarity. And that is 
why our words matter so much.
    And as terrible and as untenable as the situation is, the 
simple fact is it could get worse. It could get much worse. And 
the United States is in the position to help prevent that type 
of escalation.
    A lot of folks have said this is a non-binding resolution, 
but we do know in this time that words matter a lot and words 
coming out of this body create a permission structure for 
action, sometimes in real time. I support the vast majority of 
this resolution. We must stand against Iran and we must not 
allow them to obtain a nuclear weapon.
    There are two paragraphs in here that are highly 
problematic for me. One paragraph that says to use all means 
necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Just 
a month ago, this committee had an almost consensus debate 
about AUMFs and pushing back against the executive branch and 
recapturing authority over matters of war and peace. We believe 
firmly that it is congressional imperative for us to recapture 
that constitutional authority. And this gets awfully close to 
providing AUMF language, albeit non-binding, but I think runs 
inconsistent and contrary to that sentiment.
    The next thing that is problematic about that is the phrase 
all means necessary which would include nuclear, and I do not 
believe that we should have nuclear on the table in this 
debate.
    The last paragraph says to recognize and support the 
freedom of action of partners and allies including Israel to 
prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Democracies and 
our partners and allies absolutely have freedom of action. That 
is what makes us democracies. We respect the sovereignty of the 
other. But to say that we will support them no matter what they 
do, even if that doesn't include coordination or collaboration 
with us puts us in an untenable situation. Partners and allies 
coordinate and collaborate with each other when the actions of 
that partner and ally would inevitably draw that partner and 
ally into a conflict. There has to be coordination and 
collaboration language in that paragraph or I will not support.
    So words matter. I think this bill gets close, but I think 
it misses the mark and I would urge my colleagues to vote no so 
that we can try again and get it right. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. I have great respect 
for the gentleman. Let me just say I introduced this bill, I 
should--before the horrific events of late last week. But this 
is a resolution. It is a sense of Congress. It is not an 
authorized use of military force by definition and therefore 
cannot be considered legally as such. And so with, any further 
discussion?
    Mr. Barr is recognized.
    Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you and the 
Ranking Member for bringing a bipartisan resolution condemning 
the barbaric, unprovoked attack by Hamas terrorists of the 
Nation of Israel and Israeli civilians, women, children, 
innocent, innocent people killed.
    I also respect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
who want to have a thoughtful conversation about this and I 
agree words matter, but the moral clarity of the language is 
something that I agree with. I agree with the moral clarity. I 
believe that it should be the sense of Congress that the policy 
of the United States States is to prevent from Iran from 
obtaining a nuclear weapon by all means necessary because it is 
an existential issue for the United States, Israel, and our 
other allies, and for peace in the world. And peace requires 
deterrence and strength and moral clarity. And that is what 
this resolution offers, moral clarity, all means necessary to 
prevent the leading State sponsor of terrorism to obtain a 
nuclear weapon.
    And I do have to just take issue with the idea that the 
JCPoA offered meaningful constraints. For one thing, these were 
short-term curbs and they certainly did not constrain Iran. On 
the nuclear front, the IAEA admitted that it could not verify 
compliance. You know, Reagan famously said trust, but verify. 
In the case of Iran, I think there is probably bipartisan 
agreement that with respect to Iran, it should be distrust and 
verify. And the IAEA international nuclear inspects confirmed 
to this Congress and to the world community that it could not 
under, under the active operation of the JPoA, verify 
compliance and in fact, found cheating by Iran which is frankly 
no surprise. So that is not a meaningful constraint in my view 
on the nuclear side.
    And then, of course, on the non-nuclear side, what did the 
JCPoA accomplish? Increased military spending by the Mullah's 
in Tehran by over 50 percent and acceleration of their 
ballistic missile program and empowering and emboldening of 
Iran's regional aggression. This was not a success and that is 
why the previous Administration withdrew from the deal. And 
what I fear about the current Administration's policy prior to 
the invasion of Israel by Hamas terrorists was a situation 
where the Administration was chasing a renewal of this bad deal 
and again, weakness invites aggression. And I just would say in 
the spirit of the bipartisan nature of this agreement, I hope 
we have learned our lesson. I hope the Congress and the 
Administration have learned the lesson that when you are weak 
and when you chase sanctions relief to the leading State 
sponsor of terrorism, you invite aggression. And I say that 
with respect to my colleagues. We do have a difference of 
opinion about how we achieve the goal that we all share of 
preventing a nuclear Iran, but this is dangerous, dangerous 
when we are weak with the sponsors of this heinous attack on 
the innocent civilians in Israel. And with that, I will yield 
back. And I appreciate all of my colleagues for supporting this 
resolution.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further 
discussion?
    Mr. Schneider is recognized.
    Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Chairman McCaul. And let me start 
with saying I am very proud to have partnered with you on this 
resolution with our colleagues, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Golden and Mr. 
Wilson, Mr. Sherman, Ms. McCormick, and Ms. Manning.
    This resolution reiterates the Administration's policy that 
Iran must never have a nuclear weapon, must absolutely be 
prevented from acquiring one. I opposed joining the JCPoA in 
2015 because I had grave concerns about, among other things, 
enforcement and sunsets. Just yesterday, the restrictions on 
the ballistic missiles expired and I am grateful and pleased 
that our Treasury Department enacted new sanctions on Iran's 
drone and ballistic missiles and that the United Kingdom, 
France, and Germany will maintain their sanctions.
    My late father had a saying, if its and buts were candy and 
nuts, it does us no good in this room to be talking about 
entering the JCPoA, exiting the JCPoA, and pointing fingers. We 
are where we are and we have to take actions to make sure Iran 
never gets a nuclear weapon. That is why this resolution, I 
think, is so important.
    Leaving the deal took away our leverage. We have to find 
new ways to achieve that leverage. We have to counter the 
program and we have to make sure that we are working with our 
allies, our European allies, with Israel and others, to make 
sure Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. That is why sanctions 
are so important.
    It is as true in 2015 as it is in 2018 as it is today that 
the U.S. cannot do this alone and must work with our allies to 
ensure Iran never gets a nuclear weapon. This is the view of 
the Administration, of the Chairman and of the Ranking Member. 
I am proud to work across the aisle with my colleagues in this 
committee and across our Congress so that the leadership in 
Iran understands as clearly as possible that it is U.S. policy 
to do everything in our power, everything in our power, to 
prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
    And let me address my colleague's comments about 
coordination and collaboration and I think it is very 
important. But I also believe that by speaking with moral 
authority, with a strong voice and a clear resolve we unite our 
allies and we strengthen our position and in doing so we 
increase the likelihood of coordination, collaboration, and 
ultimately the success in achieving in our mission that Iran 
never gets a nuclear weapon. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. Any further 
discussion?
    Mr. Barrett is recognized. Mr. Barrett is leaving. Mr. 
Lawler.
    Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I listen to the 
comments from colleague say inflammatory language leads to 
inflammatory actions and I could not agree more, which is why 
it was absolutely abhorrent that we had Members of Congress 
promulgating a disgusting lie that Israel bombed a hospital in 
Gaza and to today have not apologized, nor clarified those 
comments. And in fact, yesterday, stood at a rally in support 
of Hamas terrorists promulgating the same disgusting lie. That 
type of conduct and language is not only unbecoming and unfit 
for public office, that member has no business serving in 
Congress.
    Hamas is a terrorist organization, period. The idea that 
Israel is an oppressor is a joke. The only oppressor of the 
Palestinian people is Hamas and the PA. Iran is the greatest 
State sponsor of terrorism in the world. They have backed and 
funded Hamas and Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations 
for the express purpose of wiping Israel off the face of the 
earth. They do not believe they have a right to exist. They do 
not believe the Jewish people have a right to practice their 
faith. And we have Members of Congress that do not even have 
the courage or clarity to denounce it. They are more outraged 
about a false attack on a hospital in Gaza, blaming the 
Israelis when, in fact, it was a terrorist organization that 
did it.
    So yes, inflammatory language leads to inflammatory action. 
And we should be able to speak with moral clarity. There is no 
moral equivalency here. Israel is the victim. Hamas is the 
terrorist organization that perpetrated the greatest slaughter 
of Jews since the Holocaust. Women, children, babies burned, 
beheaded, murdered, Holocaust survivors.
    It is very clear that Iran is behind this, that Iran has 
not business having nuclear weapons, and that the policy 
decisions of this Administration have been foolish at best. 
Unfreezing $6 billion in sanctioned funds was moronic. I said 
it in August. I said it on September 11th when this 
Administration notified Congress officially. Think about that. 
September 11th, the greatest terrorist attack in our Nation's 
history, they notified Congress officially that they were 
unfreezing $6 billions in sanctioned funds to give to the 
greatest State sponsor of terrorism. Are you out of your minds?
    I talked about this 3 weeks ago when we held a hearing on 
the Taylor Force Act and the Administration's failure to 
enforce it, giving funds to the PA who continue to today to use 
pay to slay policies. And in fact, they are talking about 
giving $2.8 million to the Hamas terrorists that killed Jews 
and nearly 30 Americans. So yes, inflammatory language leads to 
inflammatory actions. You are one hundred percent correct. And 
really stupid policy leads to people getting killed. I yield 
back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields. I know our 
conferences are taking place right now, so the committee will 
stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. I intend to 
give members at least 15-minutes notice before we reconvene. 
With that we stand in recess.
    [Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., the committee recessed, to 
reconvene at 1:47 p.m., the same day.]
    Chairman McCaul. The meeting will come to order.
    Is there any further discussion on the resolution? Mr. 
Sherman is recognized.
    Mr. Sherman. This is a good resolution. It is bipartisan. 
And its original cosponsors include not one but two Brads. For 
that reason alone, everyone should vote for it. But it is also 
fully consistent with the statements of the Administration and 
the policy of the Biden Administration. It is not an 
authorization to use military force. And the War Powers Act 
remains the law of the land.
    That being said, let me respond to a few of the more 
partisan things that have been said. Yes indeed, two members of 
the Democratic Caucus have said things about the Gaza hospital 
that I do not think are accurate. But 198 Republicans voted in 
late September for a CR that would cut aid to Israel by 30 
percent. I do not think that--I would love to think that one 
Member of Congress is important, especially when I am shaving 
and looking at the mirror. But the fact is 198 members is 
significant. Two members constitutes one-half of 1 percent of 
the House.
    I think Mike Pence had it right when in the day after the 
invasion from Gaza said this is what happens when Republican 
leaders call for a retreat of the United States on the world 
stage. $6 billion was moved from a well frozen bank in South 
Korea to a less frozen bank in Qatar. I would like that money 
returned to frozen and then returned to the deeper freeze in 
Seoul. But keep in mind that democracies are very vulnerable 
when hostages are taken. And while everyone decries the fact 
that Iran is closer to getting its hands on the six billion, I 
do not think a single elected official said do not do the deal 
to bring this person and that person back home from Iran.
    And the vulnerability of democracies to hostage-taking is 
not only illustrated today by what Hamas is doing but was 
illustrated last decade when Gilad Shalit was freed in return 
for thousands of Hamas terrorists, some of whom no doubt are 
involved in the attacks on Israel today. That being said, under 
the prior Administration, Iran had its hands on many billions 
of dollars.
    As to the AUMF, I saw the flaws of the AUMF. But I will 
point out that in the early stages it was both very bad and 
very good. Iran turned over a huge amount of fissile material. 
And Iran got its hands on a huge amount of money. In the middle 
years, including this year and including all the years of the 
Trump Administration, that deal was at its best. It becomes 
flawed, particularly flawed later this decade when the controls 
come off. So, if there was a time to withdraw from the deal, it 
was next year or the year after, not last year or not 3 or 4 
years ago when it was doing its job and when Iran's nuclear 
program had less fissile material than at any time in the last 
10, 12 years.
    So we can talk about a lot of things. But let's talk about 
the resolution that is before us. Let's vote for it. It says 
what I think we all agree, and that is, we must make sure that 
Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. And there is no time when 
it is more clear than today when Iran clearly favors, may have 
planned, certainly financed the brutal murder of as many 
Israeli civilians as their henchmen could get their hands on, 
not to mention the rapes, the beheadings, and the hostages.
    So let's pass this resolution. And let's forgive Sherman 
for 3 minutes of partisanship. But I was, after all, responding 
to other statements made.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Let me say I agree the sanctioned Iranian assets, $6 
billion, should be put back in the deep freezer for a long 
time.
    There being--or is there any further discussion on the 
resolution, not amendments, but on the resolution? Any further 
discussion on the resolution?
    There being no further discussion on the resolution, the 
committee will move to consideration of amendments. Does any 
member wish to offer an amendment? Ms. Jacobs is recognized.
    Ms. Jacobs. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
    The clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Ms. Jacobs follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.Res. 559 offered by Ms. Jacobs of 
California----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes on her 
amendment.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Like the rest of my generation, I grew up in the shadow of 
two protracted wars. San Diego, the largest military community 
in the country, the community which I am so proud to represent, 
paid the price. And Congress largely abdicated our 
responsibility. Our servicemembers were sent into harm's way to 
achieve impossible missions. And Congress did not take a single 
vote on that since I was in middle school.
    I know that this resolution does not actually authorize 
military force. But I am incredibly concerned that the vague 
language in H.Res. 559 could be taken as a green light for a 
war against Iran, particularly in light of the current context 
in the region. That language, that vague language could put my 
own community at risk.
    We all in this body agree that any use of force must be 
authorized by Congress. This should not be controversial. And 
regardless of our different views about what is most effective 
to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I hope we can 
at least agree that any decision about force should be made 
here in this body through specific statutory authorization and 
not through resolution with vague language.
    So I was offering a simple amendment to make it clear that 
nothing in this resolution can be construed to authorize the 
use of military force. Unfortunately, with conversations with 
the majority, they did not support that. So I will withdraw my 
amendment. But without my amendment included, I cannot support 
this bill.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady withdraws her amendment.
    Are there any further amendments to the resolution?
    There being no further amendments, I move that the 
committee report H.Res. 559, 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. I request a roll call vote.
    Pursuant to notice, I call up H.R. 2973, the Maritime Act 
of 2023. The bill was circulated in advance. The clerk shall 
designate the bill.
    [The Bill H.R. 2973 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    The Clerk. H.R. 2973, to require the Secretary of Defense 
to develop, in cooperation with allies and partners in the 
Middle East, an integrated maritime domain awareness and 
interdiction capability and for other purposes.
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is 
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to 
amendment at any point.
    Without objection, the Wagner amendment in the nature of a 
substitute circulated to members in advance shall be considered 
as read and will be treated as original text for purposes of 
the amendment.
    Is there any discussion on the bill? Mrs. Wagner is 
recognized.
    Mrs. Wagner. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 
you and Ranking Member Meeks for holding this urgently needed 
markup.
    Today we are advancing legislation that will give the U.S. 
and Israel critical tools to defend against brutal terrorist 
Iran and Iranian proxies. We are also sending a message of 
unequivocal bipartisan support for Israel.
    Israel is locked in a generational fight for survival 
against genocidal Hamas terrorists. The United States stands 
with Israel as it grieves the unthinkable loss of more than 
1,400 innocent civilians. And it stands with Israel in its 
fight to eliminate the brutal terrorist group Hamas, period, 
full stop. Our ironclad commitment to Israel encompasses, as 
well, its ability to defend itself against the existential 
threat posed by Iran and its terrorist proxies.
    That is why I urge each of my colleagues to support H.R. 
2973, the Maritime Act, this legislation that I am leading with 
my good friends of the bipartisan, bicameral Abraham Accords 
Caucus, Chairman McMorris-Rodgers, Representative Schneider, 
and Representative Trone.
    As we saw on October 7th when Hamas launched the deadliest 
assault against the Jewish people since the Holocaust, Israel 
is facing a complex range of threats across all domains. On 
that bloody front and that tragic day, Hamas terrorists 
infiltrated Israeli communities by air, by land, and by sea to 
unleash bloodshed against civilians on a scale that Israel has 
not seen in its history.
    The Maritime Act requires the United States to develop a 
comprehensive strategy for the integration of maritime security 
capabilities with allies and partners across the Middle East. 
Iran and its terrorist proxies are increasingly aggressive in 
harassing American, Israeli, and even commercial ships. And we 
have seen that Hamas will use the sea domain to advance its 
abhorrent genocidal agenda against Israel. It is imperative 
that the U.S. convene responsible States to close this gap in 
regional security. The Maritime Act will kickstart that 
essential effort.
    The U.S./Israel relationship is the linchpin of Middle 
Eastern security. The stability and the prosperity of our 
partnership brings to the region convinced Arab nations to take 
the unprecedented steps of normalizing relations with Israel, a 
farsighted and courageous decision that is already unleashing 
pent-up economic growth.
    But China, Russia, and Iran, the new axis of evil, see this 
achievement as a threat. They want to use the tragedy unfolding 
in Israel to undo the Abraham Accords. And they will plunge 
nations and regions into chaos to do so. We cannot and we will 
not let this happen.
    For a peaceful, prosperous future for the region, Israel 
and its friends must draw closer together. The U.S. must 
continue to build ties, economic, security, and cultural, 
between Arab partners and Israel.
    I thank the chair and the ranking member for working with 
the Abraham Accords Caucus to include the Maritime Act in 
today's markup. And I urge my colleagues to support this 
bipartisan legislation so the U.S. can get to work on 
bolstering security in the Middle East.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
    Is there any further discussion on the bill? Mr. Meeks is 
recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to thank both Rep. Brad Schneider, who was the 
Democratic cosponsor of this bill, along with Rep. McMorris-
Rodgers, for bringing this bill to the committee today. It 
seeks to build on important diplomatic progress the Biden 
Administration has sought to expand on and deepen as we face 
continued and persistent threats from Iran and its proxies in 
the Middle East.
    For some time, Iran has conducted disruptive naval 
operations in the Arab Gulf, threatening both U.S. personnel 
and interests, as well as Gulf partners and commercial 
shipping. The U.S. Navy, along with key partners, has worked to 
develop a coordinated strategy with Gulf partners to counter 
such activities and has included various joint patrols, 
training engagements, and other efforts.
    This bill requires the Department of Defense, with the 
concurrence of the Secretary of State, to develop a strategy to 
broaden these efforts with partners and allies throughout the 
Middle East. It is a thorough and broader and more 
comprehensive strategy and approach to regional security and 
greater integration that we can better deter Iran and its 
proxies who continue to threaten our personnel and shared 
interests.
    I support this bill and the important strategy requirements 
it contains and urge my colleagues to do so as well.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Is there any further discussion on the bill?
    Let me say I support this as well. I want to thank Mr. 
Schneider and Ms. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers, Mrs. Wagner, and 
others for bringing this bill forward.
    There being no discussion on the bill, the committee will 
move to consideration of amendments. Does any member wish to 
offer an amendment? Mr. Castro is recognized.
    Mr. Castro. Chairman, I have number 75 at the desk.
    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
    The clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Castro follows:]

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 2973 offered by Mr. Castro of Texas, page 6, 
after line 3, insert the following, limitation, a foreign 
country may be included with respect to the activities carried 
out under this section only if the Secretary of State certifies 
to the appropriate congressional committees that the country 
does not undertake military, intelligence, or other such 
cooperation with the People's Republic of China----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman.
    There is significant and important value in supporting 
greater cooperation between Israel and other nations in the 
Middle East, particularly the Gulf countries. I support efforts 
like this that would facilitate cooperation between Israel and 
countries like the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia to 
address shared security challenges. And greater cooperation can 
also improve communication among these nations and set the 
conditions for more countries to normalize ties with Israel. 
And the United States is uniquely equipped to play this role. 
But our efforts must also be in line with our own American 
interests.
    Both the Biden Administration and the previous 
Administration have rightly pointed out that the most 
significant national security threat the United States faces 
comes from the People's Republic of China. In fact, we in a 
bipartisan, overwhelmingly bipartisan way set up a committee to 
deal with that issue this Congress.
    Beijing has been making significant in roads in other parts 
of the world, as we all know, including the Middle East. And I 
am concerned about reports that it is developing stronger 
security ties with countries in the region. There are credible 
reports that the security forces of the People's Republic of 
China are establishing bases in the region and deepening 
cooperation on nuclear and ballistic missile technology with 
countries in the Middle East.
    If, under this bill, the United States is committing to 
continue to be an integral part of the security architecture of 
the Middle East, I think it is fairly reasonable to ask our 
partner countries to avoid a close defense or intelligence 
relationship with the People's Republic of China. For us to not 
do so would be to endanger national security secrets and 
American sensitive technology.
    For this reason, I ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment and protect the national security of the United 
States of America.
    And I will say, Chairman, that I had a different version of 
this amendment that I was going to file. But after 
consultation, my office and the office of Representative 
Schneider, I changed the language up so that we could work 
together and compromise on it. And that is the final language 
that you see in front of you.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. I thank the gentleman for his spirit of 
compromise.
    Is there any further discussion? Mrs. Wagner is recognized.
    Mrs. Wagner. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. And sadly, 
I have to still rise today in opposition to my good friend and 
ASEAN Caucus co-chair, Representative Castro's amendment. While 
I strongly agree with the spirit and intent of this amendment, 
which I believe is to bolster our national security, the 
language is so broad, Mr. Chairman, that it undermines these 
goals. In fact, I think it endangers the goals of the 
underlying bill.
    The Maritime Act will promote peace and cooperation among 
Abraham Accords nations, establishing stronger security ties 
between Arab States, Israel, and the United States, and 
expanding opportunities for our militaries to work together and 
to build trust.
    This amendment both ties our diplomats' hands and signals 
to Abraham Accords countries that we are open to putting these 
historic peace agreements back on the negotiating table. During 
this moment of profound crisis for Israel and the Middle East, 
we must send a clear message to signatory nations that we are 
absolutely committed to the Accords and remind them that 
partnership with the U.S. and Israel is the path to regional 
prosperity, not Iran and not the People's Republic of China.
    We absolutely must counter China's influence in the Middle 
East. This was a national security imperative. But the answer 
is not to end our cooperation with regional partners who are 
seeking to hedge against China, Russia, and Iran. This would 
play right into China's hands. And it would be a gift to Putin 
and Iran, whose regional influence the Abraham Accords 
seriously threatens.
    I have had the pleasure of working in a very bipartisan 
manner with Representative Castro for many years, as I 
mentioned before, on the ASEAN Caucus, which we co-chair. And I 
know he is sincerely committed to combating this serious threat 
the People's Republic of China poses to American interests.
    I look forward to working with the representative to 
counter China's influence in Southeast Asia and beyond. But I 
must oppose this amendment. And I would urge my colleagues to 
vote no.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
    Is there any further discussion? Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment from Rep. Castro, which I thank him and Rep. 
Schneider for collaborating on, addresses a real and growing 
threat to the United States' interests and security of our 
personnel and facilities in the Middle East.
    As China aggressively expands its overseas footprint and 
relationships globally, our Nation's top military, diplomatic, 
and intelligence leaders have expressed strong concern about 
the implications of such expansion and briefed many of us on 
potential consequences for the United States. More 
specifically, in the Arab Gulf, China has sought to 
dramatically expand its military and intelligence efforts not 
only through deepening direct relationships with those 
governments, but in some cases constructing or expanding 
physical bases and installations. Through several open source 
reports and briefings members have received, I along with many 
of my colleagues are cognizant of the fact, of these concerns 
and high stakes there.
    Therefore, this amendment adds an additional, helpful 
reporting requirement mandating the Secretary of State certify 
to Congress that a country involved in the cooperative strategy 
described does not undertake military, intelligence, or other 
cooperation with China that is inconsistent with the United 
States' national interests or national security.
    We need to make sure, as we seek to enhance cooperation and 
collaboration among Gulf partners and our own military, we are 
not exposing or needlessly endangering our personnel, 
facilities, sensitive communications, or technologies to our 
adversaries. Mr. Castro's amendment accomplishes this and 
provides a helpful addition to this important initiative. And I 
support the amendment. And I urge all members to do as well.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Any further discussion? There being no further discussion, 
the question now occurs on the amendment offered by 
Representative Castro, 75.
    All those in favor signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed signify by saying no.
    Mr. Castro. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman McCaul. Well, in the opinion of the chair, the 
noes have it.
    Mr. Castro. Sorry.
    Chairman McCaul. And I see a recorded, a roll call vote has 
been requested. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, 
this vote will be postponed.
    Are there any further amendments?
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 5826, the No Paydays 
for Hostage-Takers Act. The bill was circulated in advance. And 
the clerk shall designate the bill.
    [The Bill H.R. 5826 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    The Clerk. H.R. 5826, to require a report on sanctions 
under the Robert Levinson Hostage Recovery and Hostage-Taking 
Accountability Act and----
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is 
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to 
amendment at any point.
    Without objection, the Wilson amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, number 68, circulated to members in advance shall 
be considered as read and will be treated as original text for 
purposes of amendment.
    Is there any discussion on the bill? Mr. Wilson is 
recognized.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful for the 
inclusion of H.R. 5826, the No Paydays for Hostage-Takers Act, 
in today's markup.
    The dictatorial regime in Tehran, which oppresses its 
citizens of Iran, has increased its inhuman policy of hostage-
taking in recent years as it looks for ways to fund its 
murderous terrorist activities and oppression of the people of 
Iran. In 2021, Mohsen Rezaei, the former commander of the 
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, former Vice President of 
Iran for Economic Affairs said, ``We'll take 1,000 American 
hostages. America will have to pay billions to get every single 
one freed. This is how we can solve our economic problems. ' '
    How clear could it be, their threats of death to Israel, 
death to America? Taking hostages is a murderous tactic in the 
war between dictators of rule of gun opposing democracy's rule 
of law. The axis of evil, Putin, Raisi, and Xi, must be stopped 
by peace through strength.
    Sadly, the September 11th announcement, of all days, of the 
release of $6 billion to the terrorist regime in Tehran in 
exchange for 5 Americans detained confirms this tactic works. 
American policies should be what was declared in 1797 by South 
Carolinian, American ambassador Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to 
France, millions for defense, not a penny for tribute.
    This bipartisan legislation deters the regime from hostage-
taking and imposes penalties by requiring strict line by line 
accounting and oversight of the $6 billion should it be 
irresponsibly released, limits the ability for Iranian 
diplomats to travel at the United Nations, reiterates the 
ability of the U.S. to restrict the use of U.S. passports of 
travel to Iran to protect Americans.
    The horrific terror attacks on Israel by Iran-backed Hamas 
further underscores the barbarity of the regime as it seeks to 
fulfill its mandate of death to America and death to Israel. 
The Tehran regime must be held accountable for their murderous 
destabilization and barbaric, heinous crimes against humanity.
    I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further discussion on the bill? Mr. Meeks is 
recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. While I appreciate the work and I understand to 
be my colleague's aim to deter hostile actors in Iran or 
elsewhere from taking American hostages or wrongfully detaining 
them overseas, we must all work together and ensure that the 
State Department has all the resources and authorities from 
Congress that it needs to bring Americans home who have been 
unjustly held abroad and to offer them support that they need 
when they return home.
    I also understand and agree with my colleague's intent to 
disincentivize this sort of behavior in the future and make it 
clear to anyone who would wrongfully detain one of our citizens 
that it will not be tolerated.
    However, I must also note my concern that some of the 
messages sent in this bill risk undermining our key partners in 
the broader community of the United States, government 
institutions, families, advocates, and others. This includes 
the current latitude afforded to the State Department's Special 
Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, Roger Carstens, and his 
team who are doing the challenging work to bring Americans 
wrongfully detained abroad home.
    And I would like to offer my appreciation to the SPEHA team 
for the hard and difficult work it continues to undertake on 
behalf of the American people. We need to empower that office 
and the families of wrongfully, the detainees that rely on its 
vital assistance and advocacy, not inadvertently burden it with 
extensive reporting or overly restrictive policy prescriptions.
    I am also deeply concerned by the notion that we would 
restrict the freedom of movement of the American people, 
something that is fundamental to our liberty, and specifically 
the impact such a move would have on hundreds of thousands of 
Iranian Americans who expect our government, unlike the regime 
in Tehran, to respect their fundamental rights. As such, we 
should not take lightly the proposed invalidation of U.S. 
passports for travel to Iran or anywhere else. And I would 
request this language be removed before I could support this 
bill being on the suspension calendar.
    The legislation also requires the executive branch to 
submit 37 reports to Congress, many with extensive and 
burdensome requirements. We want our sanctions and hostage 
affairs officials focused on freezing assets and freeing 
Americans, not necessarily box checking exercises.
    I would think that there could be a bipartisan agreement to 
get the reports in the bill down to a more reasonable number. 
With these concerns aired, I nevertheless welcome the 
commitment of Representative Wilson and many other members on 
this committee on both sides of the aisle to make sure the U.S. 
government's approach on hostages and wrongful detention is 
smart and effective. So I hope our colleagues will work with us 
to address these concerns before this bill moves forward.
    And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any further discussion on the bill? Mr. Moskowitz is 
recognized.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you, 
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, for bringing H.R. 5826 and, 
Representative Wilson, for sponsoring this legislation, the No 
Paydays for Hostage-Takers Act, before the committee this 
morning.
    The legislation that Rep. Wilson and I have introduced 
earlier this month would deter Iran and other hostile 
governments and individuals from hostage-taking or wrongfully 
detaining U.S. nationals by imposing sanctions and other strict 
penalties.
    While I served in the Florida legislature, I represented 
the family of Bob Levinson, who was the longest held hostage in 
U.S. history, who died in Iranian custody. During his 
captivity, I watched and worked with the family as he missed 
birthdays, graduations, weddings, as the U.S. Government tried 
to get information about him and how his well-being was. I saw 
the weight that the family bore, constantly afraid for their 
loved one, never knowing if he would come home, having to miss 
all that his family was experiencing while living in the hell 
of the Iranian regime.
    We now see families of approximately 200 people, including 
a number of Americans, living in hell in Gaza under the 
hostage-taking of Hamas. It just came out that of the 200 
hostages that Hamas has taken 30 of them are children. We have 
seen these videos of babies and children and teens, mothers, 
fathers. We have seen a Holocaust survivor taken, a person who 
never thought again in their life they would ever be taken 
hostage.
    And so this is unacceptable. And it breaks my heart. And it 
is why I am working on a bipartisan basis on this piece of 
legislation. The No Paydays for Hostage-Takers Act will ensure 
that hostile groups who take American hostages face sharp 
reprisals and do not receive financial incentive.
    With that being said, it is an important note because of 
the misinformation that was put out in the weeks after the deal 
was announced, that not a single dollar of the six billion, not 
a single dollar of the six billion has moved. And that is an 
important correction because information in today's day and age 
is important to make sure that the facts, as they are, are 
displayed.
    And with that, I urge my colleagues to support this 
important piece of legislation.
    And I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 
Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    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? Ms. Jacobs is recognized.
    Ms. Jacobs. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman McCaul. The clerk will distribute the amendment.
    The clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Ms. Jacobs follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 5826 offered by Ms. Jacobs of California, 
strike Section 9 and insert the following, Section 9 report on 
strategy to communicate risks for travel to Iran, Sense of 
Congress, it is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of 
State should engage in a strategy to underscore the imminent--
--
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes on her 
amendment.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am incredibly proud that San Diego has a strong, vibrant 
diaspora community, including many from Iran. And annually tens 
of thousands of Americans travel to Iran to reunite with 
relatives, to celebrate milestones, and to maintain the 
familial bonds that distance and politics stretch but never 
break. That is why I find Section 9 of H.R. 5826, with its 
directive to the Secretary of State to invalidate U.S. 
passports for travel to Iran, to be so concerning.
    Restricting the freedom of movement of ordinary families in 
the U.S. doesn't make any sense. And it doesn't enhance our 
national security. The State Department has already recognized 
and warned Americans of the risks of traveling to Iran, like 
kidnaping, detention, or instability. Instead of imposing 
punitive restrictions on our citizens, we should enhance our 
strategies to protect them.
    Rather than an outright ban, my amendment would direct the 
State Department to report to Congress the current dangers 
associated with travel to Iran, assess the efficacy of existing 
advisories, and propose enhanced measures for communicating 
risks and protecting our citizens abroad.
    I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which 
upholds our core values while addressing the geopolitical 
complexities we face.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield?
    Ms. Jacobs. I yield to my friend.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank my good friend.
    And I want to support this amendment. You know, we are the 
land of the brave and home of the free or home of the brave and 
land of the free. We ought not to be in the position of 
prohibiting Americans from traveling frankly anywhere. And as 
Ms. Jacobs points out, by actually facilitating family visits 
and other interchanges with Iran, we have a better chance over 
time of effectuating the kind of positive change we want to 
see. We have other examples where, in fact, we have had strict 
travel bans. And they did not produce at all the desired 
results we sought. In fact, they managed to shore up the regime 
and keep it in power for more than half a century.
    So allowing flexibility and respecting the fact that there 
are Iranian Americans with family in Iran and allowing them to 
have their family connections, their family celebrations I 
think is really important. And I think this amendment does that 
while also allowing us to monitor it to make sure that if there 
were some severe reason to restrict that travel the State 
Department would be monitoring it and informing Congress as to 
the whys and wherefores of that.
    So I think this is a thoughtful amendment. I think it 
improves the bill. I am happy to support it. And I thank my 
friend for yielding.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
    Any further discussion on the amendment? Mr. Meeks is 
recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. This amendment addresses my concerns about hasty 
and unhelpful restrictions on Americans' freedom of movement 
for the Secretary of State to take the step to invalidate U.S. 
passports for travel to Iran.
    I appreciate the serious risks that U.S. travelers to Iran 
may encounter and have welcomed the State Department's Level 4 
travel advisory warning Americans not to travel to Iran ``due 
to the risk of kidnaping, the arbitrary arrest and detention of 
U.S. citizens, and the danger of civil unrest.' ' I also 
welcome the Department's effort with respect to Iran and 
globally to expand indicators in its travel advisories, 
specifically related to the risk of wrongful detention abroad.
    But it is not a small thing to potentially limit the 
freedom of movement of thousands of Americans, including 
Iranian Americans with loved ones in Iran by invalidating U.S. 
passports for travel to Iran. I have expressed similar concerns 
in other situations such as Cuba, where Americans' freedom of 
movement has been curtailed. The U.S. Government is not an 
authoritarian or anti-democratic regime. We have long committed 
to do all in our power to protect our citizens' most 
fundamental human rights.
    So I support this amendment, which asks only for precisely 
what we need here, a more detailed understanding of the 
imminent danger to public health or physical safety of U.S. 
travelers to Iran, with the State Department and what the State 
Department is doing to communicate travel risk and what more it 
needs to do so effectively.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield for a question?
    Mr. Meeks. Yes.
    Mr. Connolly. Is my friend aware of any evidence, empirical 
evidence, that a ban on travel of American citizens has led to 
goals being achieved with respect to relations between us and 
that particular country?
    Mr. Meeks. No.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend.
    Mr. Sherman. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Meeks. Yes.
    Mr. Sherman. I will just comment that there is a range of 
different approaches to different countries. We have a virtual 
travel ban with, State Department can give waivers, to going to 
North Korea because a very high percentage of the people from 
the United States that go to North Korea are held hostage.
    As the gentlelady from California points out, there are 
tens of thousands of Americans who visit Iran, and only a few 
are held hostage. But we do see that, in spite of the travel 
ban, when somebody is held hostage by the Iranian government 
the response of ordinary Americans isn't, oh, well, we warned 
you, so you are on your own. We do everything possible to bring 
Americans back. And Iran will occasionally find this useful. 
But I am not, you know, given the fact that so many Americans 
go, I am not prepared to ban at all right now.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Connolly. Would Mr. Meeks yield again?
    I think it is important with respect to Mr. Sherman's 
intervention that the question I put to you was not are 
individuals at risk. People take risks all the time when they 
travel. The question was is there any evidence of that kind of 
broad prohibition effectuating change in the behavior of the 
country involved. And your answer was----
    Mr. Meeks. No.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank my----
    Mr. Sherman. And I will ask the gentleman to yield as well 
and point out we are not doing this--obviously, the purpose of 
this bill is not to improve relations with the Islamic 
Republic. The purpose of this bill is to protect Americans from 
being held hostage.
    And it is true that we warn Americans that they might be 
held hostage. But the harm is not just to the individual 
American. Yes, they and their families suffer while they are 
held hostage. But then America suffers when we make major 
concessions to get them out. And no one on this committee is 
going to say that we will turn our back on an American simply 
because they did not notice that it was a Level 4 restriction.
    So, as I say, I am not ready to go for this bill. But I 
would say that if this was some country that did not hold our 
people hostage ever, that improving relations through travel 
would be high up on my list. But for every tens of, you know, 
every American that goes to Iran could be a hostage. And as a 
hostage, the harm is to the family, the person, and the United 
States.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Meeks. And with that, I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields.
    Any other members seek recognition? Mr. Wilson is 
recognized.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I oppose this amendment by my friend Congresswoman Jacobs, 
and President Connolly, and Ranking Member Meeks, which removes 
a critical provision urging the Secretary of State to declare 
United States passports invalid for travel to Iran.
    I have been honored to work with Iranian Americans who are 
such an inspiration as they pursue justice and freedom for 
their families, while contributing so meaningfully to America. 
I know their commitments to their loved ones who are oppressed 
by the murderous regime in Tehran. Sadly, we are in a situation 
today we did not choose where we must act to prevent further 
hostage taking by--of Americans by a dictatorial regime in the 
war of dictators against democracies, the Axis of Evil, Putin, 
the regime in Tehran, the Chinese Communist Party.
    I was grateful to work on bipartisan legislation to prevent 
Americans from traveling to North Korea, the Democratic 
People's Republic of Korea using a United States passport 
following the murderous death of Otto Warmbier at the hands of 
Dictator Kim Jung Uns' regime. And appreciate Congressman 
Sherman reiterating again we have this in place already for the 
dictatorial regime in North Korea.
    I appreciate that there are differences as we want Iranian 
Americans to maintain close times--ties with their families in 
Iran. It is important to note that Iran already does not 
recognize dual nationality, and treats Iranian Americans as 
Iranian, requiring an Iranian passport for entry and exit. The 
inability to travel on a United States passport would likely 
have little effect on the appreciated Iranian diaspora, which 
is so important all across America.
    This amendment calls for a strategy to underscore the 
dangers of travel to Iran. The dangers could not be more clear.
    I urge opposition to this amendment. And I yield back
    Mr. Connolly. Would my friend yield?
    Mr. Wilson. Yes, Mr. President.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank you so much, Mr. Wilson.
    I really appreciate the motivation behind the amendment. 
But I think there is a certain paternalism we need to guard 
against in protecting people from themselves. We are Americans. 
We are free people. We are free to make decisions, including 
bad ones.
    There are lots of countries, not only Iran, where Americans 
are at risk when they travel, including at risk of being 
imprisoned under false charges. You mentioned North Korea, but 
there is Cuba, there is China, there is Russia, there is 
Nicaragua, there is a whole host of countries where Americans 
put themselves at risk when they travel there.
    And I do not think the solution is for us to have a blanket 
prohibition country by country, you know, cordoning off large 
chunks of the world's geography because Americans are at risk. 
I do not want any Americans to be at risk. I do not want any 
American harmed or jailed. But I am not sure, in fact I am 
pretty sure the solution is not a blanket prohibition on the 
right to travel, even if you know the risks in advance.
    I thank my good friend for yielding.
    Mr. Wilson. And, Mr. President, I would like to point out 
the former president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I want 
to clarify on the position of Congressman Connolly.
    But in light of that, indeed, where you have this North 
Korea, we already have, or they, Iran, already restricts 
persons from the United States coming into their country. But 
with the $6 billion ransom announced on the anniversary of 9 
11, how crazy is this, the potential of a billion dollars per 
person. And then we can only go back to the statement by the 
Iranian officials was 2021, it was 2 years ago that they said 
they looked forward to holding Americans as ransom for a 
billion dollars each.
    Now, I would have thought that was absurd, except it has 
happened.
    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 Jacobs, Number 129.
    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.
    For what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition?
    Ms. Jacobs. A roll call.
    Chairman McCaul. A roll call 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.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up H.R. 340, the ``Hamas 
International Financing Prevention Act.''
    [The Bill H.R. 340 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. 340, to impose sanctions with respect to 
foreign support for terrorist organizations, including Hamas 
and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.''
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, the first reading is 
dispensed with. The bill is considered read and open to 
amendment at any point.
    Without objection, the Mast amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, Number 117, circulated to members in advance, shall 
be considered as read and will be treated as original text for 
purposes of amendments.
    [The Amendment of Mr. Mast follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Chairman McCaul. Is there any discussion on the bill?
    Mr. Mast is recognized.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman.
    The purpose of this bill is simple: the Palestinians that 
conducted this attack on Israel, they did not do it by 
themselves. They did not do it without support from the 
outside. They did not do it without support from other 
countries, from perhaps non-profit organizations, as we might 
call them here in the U.S., or non-government entities, or 
charity groups.
    The support was far reaching, and it has been for many 
years. Whether it is the financial support, the support of 
intelligence, the support of propaganda, the support of 
ordnance, rockets, artillery, grenades, the support of small 
arms. It has been expensive. And it extends well beyond the 
borders of the Gaza Strip and the borders of the West Bank.
    The purpose of this legislation, very specifically, is to 
oppose Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Al Aqsa Martyrs 
Brigade, and Lion's Den, and any other affiliate or successor 
group that is using goods to include medicines, or dual-use 
items, or other things to smuggle weapons and materials, and 
other items that are, that are used for war against Israelis, 
used for terrorism against Israel.
    To be very specific about this, it is to name, identify, 
sanction all of those entities that assist in sponsoring or 
providing financial services, or financial goods, material 
services or goods, technological services or goods, any of 
those, those aforementioned entities that might provide any of 
that that absolutely enabled the attack that we just witnessed 
to take place; that there be sanctions in terms of asset 
freezes, arms embargoes, travel bans, import-export controls.
    You name it, if they are finding a way to get it into the 
hands of the Palestinians, and those in the Gaza Strip and the 
West Bank that conducted these attacks by any name, we should 
be doing everything that we can to stop that from occurring.
    We have the capabilities to prevent that from occurring. We 
have to exercise those capabilities to make sure that it does 
not happen and that we can stand by and say that we did 
everything possible to, to make sure that ``never again'' was 
exactly what we fought for.
    And in that, Mr. Chairman, I yield you the remainder of my 
time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields the remainder of his 
time.
    Any further discussion on the bill?
    Ms. Manning is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks.
    Mr. Meeks. Hamas has been since its inception a military 
and political entity dedicated to one thing, destruction of 
Israel. And rather than addressing the needs and concerns of 
the Palestinian people, Hamas has furthered their suffering.
    This group has used Palestinians as human shields, has 
terrorized its own population and, of course, this October the 
7th raid and destruction, kidnaping, rape of Israeli people. 
And it has destabilized the Gaza Strip.
    Since 2001, Hamas has launched tens of thousands of rockets 
at Israeli and Palestinian civilians, conducted countless 
terror attacks, engaged in hostage taking, and tortured the 
Palestinian people. The State Department first designated Hamas 
as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997. And the EU and 
other western countries have done the same.
    But today, passage of this legislation will provide more 
tools for this and future Administrations to hold Hamas 
accountable for its terrorism and brutality.
    And while Hamas leaders do not have assets in the United 
States, new sanctions have been unveiled by the Biden 
Administration this week that will increase pressure on some of 
the countries that host them. With this legislation, the United 
States will now be able to penalize third parties who provide 
assistance to Hamas.
    While we design to put more pressure on Hamas, we also want 
to make certain that American and partner NGO's and governments 
are still able to assist the people of Gaza with their 
humanitarian needs. The waiver present in this legislation, 
while strict, will allow that assistance to continue. We have 
verified this with the State and Treasury Departments.
    So, therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting Mr. Mast's bill.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any further discussion on the bill?
    Ms. Manning is recognized.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am proud to speak in support of H.R. 340, the ``Hamas 
International Financing Prevention Act,'' a bipartisan bill 
introduced by our colleagues Brian Mast and Josh Gottheimer to 
impose sanctions on the terrorist group Hamas.
    On October 7th, we woke in horror to find Hamas' brutal and 
despicable terrorist attacks, firing rockets at innocent 
civilians, storming the Israeli border, and invading Israel, 
going house to house murdering babies, executing parents in 
front of their children, massacring 260 young people at a music 
festival. Hamas has killed 31 U.S. citizens and more than 1,400 
Israelis in its attacks, while taking 200 people hostage in 
Gaza, including babies and toddlers.
    And just today we learned that an 80 year old American 
citizen and her 13 year old granddaughter who was kidnaped by 
Hamas terrorists from their kibbutz on October 7th, have now 
been found dead.
    So, let us remember, Hamas terrorists are not militants, 
they are not freedom fighters, they are not a civil resistance 
movement, they are a brutal foreign terrorist organization 
which is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the murder 
of Jews.
    It is no secret that this is their goal. It is plainly 
Stated in their charter. It is important also to recognize that 
Hamas has no regard for the lives of innocent Palestinian 
civilians in Gaza, the very people they were elected to govern, 
who suffer under Hamas.
    Let there be no mistake, Hamas bears responsibility for 
their pain as well.
    All countries around the world should join the U.S. in 
demanding Hamas immediately release all of the hostages 
currently held in Gaza. I am pleased that yesterday the 
Treasury Department imposed a round of additional sanctions on 
senior Hamas officials and their financial backers. We need to 
continue to bring pressure to bear on Hamas and cutoff their 
flow of resources.
    That is why this bipartisan legislation imposes sanctions 
on foreign entities that provide material and financial support 
to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, while also providing for important 
humanitarian exemptions.
    Once again, I thank my colleagues for their work on this 
bill. I urge support for it.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
    Any further discussion on the bill?
    Mr. Phillips is recognized.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Meeks, for bringing this bill before the committee.
    But let me start first by thanking my Republican friends 
and colleagues for defending the State of Israel, for 
supporting the Jewish community, both here and around the 
world, during days, and weeks, and months. But we surely need 
it. It's meaningful to us. It's important to us. And we are 
feeling feelings, and fears, and threats that I think none of 
us ever anticipated feeling in this country as Americans. And I 
want to thank you for that, sincerely.
    The attack that Hamas perpetrated on Israel on October 7th 
was just despicable. Unspeakable evil, over 1,500 human beings 
murdered in cold blood, thousands wounded, and almost 200 
believed to be held hostage in Gaza.
    One of them is this little 3 year old girl, Abigail, whose 
father was shot with her in his arms, and she kidnaped and 
taken to Gaza. I just want all of us to think about her, her 
parents, and other little children, both in Israel and in Gaza 
right now. And that is why we serve on this committee, to try 
to prevent these nauseating experiences of loss of life.
    As Members of Congress it is our responsibility to do 
everything in our power to ensure that these terrorists are 
held to account and not able to use United States financial 
institutions to facilitate their despicable work. And that is 
why I was pleased to see the Biden Administration sanction ten 
Hamas members to disrupt its financial network. And that is why 
I stand ready to support this measure, which imposes further 
sanctions targeting Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
    However, I am disappointed about the implications that such 
a broad imposition of sanctions will have on Palestinian 
civilians. And I do want to separate the two. It is my belief, 
having spoken to many, that Hamas does not represent the 
majority of Palestinian civilians. In fact, I believe Hamas to 
be both the enemy of Israel, of Palestinians, and the free 
world.
    The chilling effect that those proposed sanctions will have 
on trusted NGO partners delivering critical humanitarian 
assistance to Palestinian civilians is also on my mind.
    So, in this moment of tragedy, I just ask that we remember 
that the majority of Palestinians are not Hamas, and that Hamas 
does not represent the Palestinian people.
    So, to that end, I support Representative Jacobs' amendment 
that would strengthen humanitarian exceptions in the bill. And 
I look forward to working to further confront Hamas and other 
terrorist organizations, while continuing to support innocent 
civilians all around the world.
    I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further discussion on the bill?
    Mr. Moskowitz is recognized.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I won't repeat too much of what my colleagues have said, 
but I want to point out a couple of things because I think it 
is important over the last couple of days as we saw that 
horrific, tragic incident at the hospital in Gaza.
    First of all, the Gaza Ministry of Health is Hamas. So, any 
information that comes out of Gaza is put out by a terrorist 
organization.
    It is, and was, deeply disturbing to see the international 
media immediately take the word of Hamas that caused protests 
and riots around the world, it caused meetings with our allies 
to be canceled for the President, to see colleagues in this 
body immediately blame Israel with zero proof that Israel had 
anything to do with the tragedy at that hospital.
    But, yes, when Israel said they did not do it, everyone 
said, you must have proof. You must show us satellite imagery. 
You must show us the audio recordings. You must show us the 
missile trajectory. You must show us the size of the crater.
    Hamas, no proof. Israel, prove it.
    It is a disgusting, antisemitic, anti-Israel double 
standard. It is part of why this bill and resolution is so 
important.
    There can be no cease-fire with a terrorist organization 
while they are holding 200 hostages: Americans, children, 
Holocaust survivors. What kind of policy would that be if we 
let people capture Americans and then immediately say cease-
fire?
    What kind of message would that send to all the other 
people that want to cause harm to Americans? Are you going to 
take our people and immediately we enter into a cease-fire?
    You know, this is the first time that I can recall the 
stories my grandmother, who escaped Berlin, Germany, as part of 
a Kindertransport for the Holocaust. The pictures you have seen 
at the Holocaust Memorial, the stories you have told, the 
videos you have seen, Schindler's List, this is the first time 
that I think the Jewish community in modern times now 
understands that there are people, terrorist organizations, 
others protesting around the world and in this country, that 
want to see Hitler's dream fulfilled.
    And that is what Hamas is committed to. Hamas is not just 
committed to wiping a country off the earth, they are committed 
to wiping its people off the earth. And, yet, they are treated 
as a legitimate source of news in the international media. It 
is abhorrent.
    And so, I want to thank the sponsor, Congressman Mast, for 
bringing this forward. I just want to remind people when they 
say there are two sides to this story, let me tell you 
something: raping women is not resistance. Taking children 
hostage is not resistance. Taking a Holocaust survivor is not 
resistance. And killing 1,300 civilians, children in front of 
their parents, parents in front of their children, decapitating 
people, is not resistance.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any further discussion on the bill?
    There being no further discussion of the bill, the 
committee will move to consideration of amendments.
    Does any member wish to offer an amendment?
    Mr. Mast. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
    [The Amendment of Mr. Mast follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the Mast 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    The clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. ``Amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 340, offered by Mr. Mast of Florida.
    ``Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:
    ``Section 1, Short Title.
    ``This Act may be cited as the 'Hamas and Other Palestinian 
Terrorist Groups International Financing Prevention Act.' 
Section--''
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any further discussion on the amendment?
    Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. There are both positive and negative aspects of 
this ANS vis---vis the introduced version of this legislation. 
Importantly the ANS removes the counterproductive exception of 
for importation of goods which undermines sanctions programs. 
More concerningly, it changes the humanitarian exception to a 
humanitarian waiver which will cause more de-risking from 
potential donors. Given that the bill's sanctions currently do 
not sunset, this change in language is concerning. And I would 
ask for continued dialog on redeeming--on re-mending this 
issue.
    Nonetheless, given the important of Congress demonstrating 
unity against Hamas, which is in the forefront of all of our 
minds at this moment, I will not oppose the ANS.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Any further 
discussion on the amendment, the Mast amendment?
    There being no further discussion, do any members wish to 
offer an amendment to the Mast amendment in the nature of a 
substitute?
    Ms. Jacobs is recognized.
    Ms. Jacobs. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    [The Amendment offered by Ms. Jacobs follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
   
    Chairman McCaul. The clerk shall distribute the amendment.
    The. Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 340 offered by Ms. Jacobs of California. 
Page 4, beginning line 23, amend Subsection G to read as 
following: Humanitarian exemption. The following activities 
shall be exempt from sanctions under this section.
    Chairman McCaul. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    The gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes on her 
amendment.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The actions of Hamas, particularly the reprehensible attack 
on October 7, are beyond justification. They have destabilized 
the region and destroyed and changed lives forever. I condemn 
these attacks and I support Israel's right to defend itself and 
echo the calls for Hamas to immediately release all hostages, 
but in our pursuit of security we cannot lose our humanity. The 
sanctions proposed in this bill, while aimed at upholding 
peace, potentially restrict humanitarian aid from reaching 
innocent Palestinians in need.
    The situation in Gaza is dire and it is not about politics; 
it is about people. It is about preventing humanitarian 
catastrophe. So I am thankful for the Biden Administration's 
efforts especially the recent breakthrough allowing aid trucks 
through the Rafah Crossing. However, this bill in its current 
form risks undermining these diplomatic and humanitarian 
efforts.
    The original draft, Mr. Mast's own original draft of this 
bill, had a more straightforward humanitarian exemption, one 
that provided a more viable pathway for essential aid: food, 
medicine, and other life-saving supplies, to reach those trying 
to survive in Gaza.
    Both the State Department and the Treasury Department 
prefer this version of the humanitarian exemption to ensure 
that humanitarian assistance can get in. And so I was 
incredibly disappointed to see that the majority modified this 
humanitarian clause by requiring a case-by-case waiver which 
will inevitably slow down the provision of assistance.
    All my amendment would do is return to the original 
language, again the original language in Mr. Mast's own 
original draft, which provides an exemption only for the life-
saving necessary humanitarian assistance to those most in need. 
I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense amendment 
that takes the humanitarian exemption back to Mr. Mast's own 
original draft, and I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentlelady yields back.
    Any further discussion of the amendment?
    Mr. Mast is recognized.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you for offering an amendment. I disagree with 
your amendment. And the purpose of submitting any piece of 
legislation is to make the bill better, to make the legislation 
better. And my friend Mr. Moskowitz, I think he spoke very 
passionately, very eloquently, and from the heart about what it 
is that we are doing with here. And I think if you reflect on 
what he said, and to reflect on what you just said, my 
colleague Ms. Jacobs, any assistance should be slowed down. Any 
assistance.
    Because I would challenge anybody in here to point to me 
which Palestinian is Hamas and which one is an innocent 
civilian. Which is the one--the child that was poking the 
Israeli children, the children that were poking other Israeli 
children and which one exactly are the innocent ones? Which are 
the ones that were standing by somewhere along the border 
saying no, turn around; no, return that person; no, do not take 
that person hostage; no, do not conduct that rape, that murder, 
that beheading, that whatever? It should absolutely be every 
effort made to slow down any perceived assistance that is going 
there.
    And to perhaps bring any equivalencies in some part, have 
the conversation of would this be something we would talk about 
immediately following Pearl Harbor or immediately following 9/
11?
    I will be happy to yield to you in a moment, if you like. I 
see you reaching for your button.
    And I would argue that should not be something that we 
should argue, that after Pearl Harbor or after 9/11 we should 
seek cease-fire, seek not having the greatest violence of 
action over anybody that comes against us, seek finding ways to 
support them and assist them in the most expedient way. That 
would be the opposite of what I would propose supporting.
    It looks like you want to have a dialog on this. I am happy 
to do so.
    Ms. Jacobs. Well, thank you, Mr. Mast, and I think we both 
agree that Israel has a right to defend itself, should be doing 
everything it can to get the hostages back. I think what we 
disagree on is this question of humanitarian assistance and the 
humanitarian circumstances in Gaza.
    I feel very strongly that the 5-year-old who currently is 
having a hard time being able to get access to any water, to 
any food has nothing to do with Hamas, that you cannot blame 
the children who are living in Gaza for the actions of adults 
that do not represent them. And I think it is not only about 
the Palestinian children; it is about our own humanity. That is 
the reason why we should make humanitarian assistance should 
get it.
    And to your comparison to after Pearl Harbor, after Pearl 
Harbor the U.S. Government put American citizens of Japanese 
descent into camps because we let our fear and our anger get in 
the way of our humanity. And I wish that there had been Members 
of Congress who were there saying that we need to pause. We 
need to make sure we are doing the humanitarian thing in 
addition to doing the security thing and that actually doing 
the humanitarian in the long term is better for our and 
Israel's safety and security. Thank you.
    Mr. Mast. Always happy to hear you out. Again, I think 
there are other things we could speak about peripheral to this 
that haven't really been brought up in this. Another reason for 
the purpose of slowing any aid is that to get anything into the 
Gaza Strip--that is the mechanism by which smuggling takes 
place, to smuggle the things that are used to kill Jews, to 
kill Israelis, to make capable what they have proven their 
resolve, which is they will live alongside Jews only so long as 
they need to up until the point that they can conduct enough 
planning, reconnaissance, intelligence, and strategizing to 
execute a mass murder.
    And that being the resolve of the entity that may receive 
some sort of humanitarian assistance somewhere from some 
entity, yes, I believe it should absolutely have the greatest 
deliberation no matter how much it slows it down.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Any further discussion on the amendment? Mr. Meeks is 
recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. I support Representative Jacobs' amendment. One 
of the most difficult--and I really appreciate her response to 
Mr. Mast. One of the most difficult and daunting events that 
happened in the United States was 9/11. I voted because I 
wanted to go and get everyone that was involved. IS came later. 
Al Qaeda. But I did not want to--and if we bomb anywhere; and 
we did make mistakes then, that we should make sure that we 
were able to make sure that our humanitarian side prevailed and 
we gave--and give assistance to those in need and not just say 
we do not care about innocent individuals, because then we lose 
our humanitarian argument.
    Completely this Hamas terrorist group, there is nothing 
that is humane about them, but Hamas is not all of the 
Palestinian people. We have got to make sure that that 
distinction is clearly made. Hamas is not the Palestinian 
people.
    I can recall times in the United States of America where a 
Black person would be accused of something and as result the 
whole town was wiped out and no aid coming in. Those that 
commit the crime, we have got to go after them.
    This amendment restores what I know was the humanitarian 
exemption that was introduced in the version of the bill, which 
I would have liked to have seen retained. I believe it offers a 
clear and transparent and vetted pathway to provide crucial 
life-saving materials to those suffering in Gaza. And I think 
when we show that that helps us and helps them on the ground to 
point out those who are members of Hamas.
    Such exemptions have proven effective throughout America 
sanctions policy. Humanitarian relief in Gaza is morally the 
right thing to do but also in America's foreign policy 
interests. A waiver as opposed to an exception will create more 
bureaucratic and more de-risking by leading humanitarian 
organizations.
    The original language in Mr. Mast's bill--Mr. Mast had in 
his bill; and it was there for years until it was changed 
earlier this week, I believe was more thoughtfully crafted than 
the language in the current ANS, and as such I firmly support 
the Jacobs amendment. And I think that we could have a clearer 
message from everyone, because I think that--I know Mr. Mast 
has the best of intent and he wants to go and make sure that 
those that committed these horrendous acts do not get anything 
to help them further kill anyone. I know his intent on this. It 
is a good cause.
    But I just ask that we have got to make sure that we try to 
make sure that innocent folks get access to humanitarian need 
and not say that because of Hamas you have got to starve, too, 
and we are not going to try to do something that is humane.
    But again, this is so serious and I just would hope that--
hate that we even have to have this argument because I know at 
the basis of what we are talking about we all agree upon. And 
with that I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Do any other members seek recognition?
    Mr. Castro is recognized.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman.
    I strongly support Representative Jacobs' amendment. As all 
of us watched and heard about the events of October 7 I think 
it filled all of us rage. And we as Americans were enraged 
after September 11, so I think there is an understanding of 
that. But as President Biden alluded to a few days ago I 
believe while he was in Israel, that rage, that anger also led 
us to make mistakes. And I think it is dangerous when we 
legislate in rage.
    One of the basic things that we should be able to agree on 
I think is that humanitarian aid should be provided to the 
people of Gaza, or at least allowed in. Many if no most of the 
people living in Gaza; and there are millions of people living 
in Gaza, never voted for Hamas. There haven't been elections 
since 2006. And we hearing and we believe that Hamas is not the 
Palestinian people, but there are many Palestinians who are 
paying the price for what Hamas did including many Palestinian 
children who are dying now because of what Hamas did.
    And so I believe in all of it, that as a baseline we should 
be able to say that humanitarian aid should be able to get in 
there efficiently and effectively. So for that reason I support 
Ms. Jacobs' amendment. I am going to yield back to the 
chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
    There being no further discussion the question now occurs 
on the amendment offered by Ms. Jacobs, No. 128 to the 
amendment in 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 noes have it. The amendment 
is not agreed to.
    Ms. Jacobs?
    Ms. Jacobs. I 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?
    Hearing no further amendments further the proceedings on 
this bill are postponed.
    Ms. Kim of California [presiding]. Pursuant to notice I now 
call up H.R. 3266, The Peace and Tolerance in Palestinian 
Education Act.
    [The Bill H.R. 3266 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Ms. Kim of California. The bill was circulated in advance. 
The clerk shall designate the bill.
    The. Clerk. H.R. 3266 to require the Secretary of State to 
submit annual reports reviewing the curriculum used by the 
Palestinian authority and for other purposes.
    Ms. Kim of California. Without objection, the first reading 
is dispensed with and the bill is considered read and open the 
amendment--open to amendment at any point.
    Is there any discussion on the bill?
    Mr. Sherman. Yes.
    Ms. Kim of California. I recognize Representative Sherman.
    Mr. Sherman. I am pleased to introduce this bill as I have 
in the prior two Congresses. I want to thank Chairman McCaul 
for bringing this bill to this markup. It is The Peace and 
Tolerance in Palestinian Education Act.
    This bill has passed this committee without dissent in two 
prior Congresses. Those were voice votes. This time I will ask 
for a recorded vote because I am told that the majority is more 
likely to bring up a bill at--on the House floor as a 
suspension if it has been the subject of a roll call vote. I 
won't call a roll call vote to try to put anybody on the spot 
or waste any time, but I will call for a roll call vote this 
time.
    I want to thank so many of my colleagues on this committee 
who have supported and co-sponsored this legislation over the 
years. I want to thank Representative Mast as the lead 
Republican and thank co-sponsors Moskowitz, Salazar, Schneider, 
Manning, Chris Smith, Castro, Lawler, Radewagen, Cherfilus-
McCormick, regular McCormick, Kean, and Liu. Roughly equal 
numbers of Democrats and Republicans have co-sponsored this 
bill.
    What we saw on October 7 shattered all of our hearts. What 
we understand is that this is the outcome of how generations of 
children in Gaza and the West Bank are taught to embrace death 
and terrorism.
    The schools receive very substantial U.S. aid. They are run 
chiefly by UNRWA, the U.N. agency, and this agency receives 
U.S. aid without sufficient accountability. For years the 
United States has been the top donor to the Palestinian people. 
Keep that in mind. The government whose president was there in 
Israel yesterday saying that we stand by Israel is also the top 
donor to the Palestinian people, exceeding the amount of any of 
the oil-rich States with whom the Palestinians share a heritage 
and language. And of course our aid goes to the Palestinian 
authority and the U.N. agency UNRWA.
    But American support should not be a blank check. American 
dollars must be spent in accordance with American values.
    Just one example: On March 11, 1978 Dalal Mughrabi and 10 
other PLO militants, terrorists, hijacked two civilian buses 
and killed 38 of their civilian passengers including 13 
children in what is now known as the Coastal Road Massacre. 
Today and last year and the year before that and the year 
before that Palestinian children educated in schools run by the 
U.N. and the Palestinian authority used textbooks describing 
Mughrabi as a crown of the Nation with a full chapter 
discussing the massacre in detail and exalting her for heroism. 
It is not surprising that when we look at Gaza today we see 
death because of the education that has gone on.
    UNRWA has made commitments to address this issue in its 
2021 Framework of Cooperation, but it doesn't actually come 
through on those commitments. What this bill does is require 
the State Department to give us a report on the educational 
materials used in the West Bank and Gaza with our money. The 
bill will provide Congress with the information we need to 
respond. Hopefully it will be used by the State Department to 
push UNRWA and to push the Palestinian authority in the right 
direction.
    It is time to stop educating Palestinian children for death 
and terrorism. It is not a great accomplishment and should not 
be taught as a great accomplishment to Palestinian children, to 
die or to kill civilians. That is why this bill takes the first 
step. It is a modest bill and it is just a first step toward 
a--hopefully a future generation of Palestinians who are 
educated for peace rather than for terrorism. With that I yield 
back.
    Ms. Kim of California. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further discussion?
    Mr. Mast is recognized.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    And I want to thank my friend Mr. Sherman for his work on 
this bill and for allowing me to work on with him. I think 
there needs to be a realization among many of our colleagues, a 
coming to Jesus moment, as you might say, that Hamas is 
literally Palestinians. I keep hearing it said that Hamas is 
not Palestinians, it doesn't represent all of Palestine. And I 
would not use it as an absolute, but young people from the time 
of grade school in the Gaza Strip are given the pedigree to 
become Hamas, trained to become Hamas from their algebra and 
arithmetic to their reading, writing, and geography.
    We have a picture up here. This is obviously an historic 
photo dated back to World War II, eerily similar to what just 
happened in the last couple days. A young child saying--calling 
for the mother. Prodded by Palestinian youth. Those Palestinian 
youth with the pedigree being trained up to become the next 
Hamas. So do not confuse it that it is somebody else.
    Year after year after year in this committee, every time--
whether it is in this room or in another committee room that we 
have somebody in here to talk about the relationship between 
Israelis and Palestinians, or the Taylor Force Act, or another 
barrage of rockets going on, that happens year after year. 
Whenever we have people in here, I ask them the same question, 
and I get the same answer over and over, whether it is a 
Republican witness or a Democrat witness, whether it is 
somebody that claims to be self-proclaimed polling experts of 
any Palestinian-controlled area. You name it, the answer is the 
same, that Hamas would win a popular election and that is why 
they do not have the elections there.
    We know Hamas has won popular elections there, though not 
since I believe 2006, as was mentioned before because they do 
not have them anymore at this point. But it is well-documented 
on both sides that Hamas is the Palestinians. Everybody should 
let that sink in and recognize that. They weren't out there 
reporting their cousins, their nephews, their uncles, their 
whomever saying this is what they are about to do; stand ready 
and do what you can to prevent this. Those weren't the videos 
that you saw.
    They weren't out there creating mobs standing against the 
people being pulled into the Gaza Strip who would become 
hostages, hundreds of hostages in tunnels, we do not know if 
being tortured, killed, used as human shields. We do not know, 
but we did not see them being stopped by the--that people keep 
saying the innocent Palestinians. That did not take place.
    Let's give some examples of how they are pedigree is shaped 
from the very beginning: Palestinian sixth graders' grammar 
exercise requires them to add the correct verb to the 
sentences. The Jihad warriors fought in defense of their 
homeland and the believers rushed to respond the case to Jihad. 
That is a little bit of their grammar.
    Another example: Fourth grade Palestinian math problem. The 
number of martyrs in the First Intifada is 2,026 martyrs and 
the number of martyrs of the al-Aqsa Intifada is 5,050. The 
number of martyrs in the two intifadas is how many martyrs? 
That is their pedigree.
    Let's go to another one: Seventh grade physics problem, 
Newton's second law. During the first Palestinian uprising 
Palestinian youths used slingshots to confront the soldiers of 
the Zionist occupation and defend themselves from their 
treacherous bullets. What is the relationship between the 
elongation of slingshots rubber and the tensile strength 
affecting it? Using it for science.
    Let's use another one: Geography question, Palestinian 
sixth graders, to define the borders of Palestine which 
completely erases Israel's existence.
    People need to move away from this idea of saying that the 
Palestinians are not Hamas and that Hamas are not the 
Palestinians. This is what they train them up to be. This is 
their pedigree. This is what they have proven to be. And I 
think you would be hard-pressed right now to find the 
Palestinian that is not support of the hostages and the killing 
that took place as opposed to the ones that stood against it. I 
yield.
    Ms. Kim of California. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there any further discussion? Ranking Member?
    Mr. Meeks. I have got to respond to that and then I am 
going to give my remarks. Mr. Mast, are you Ku Klux Klan?
    Mr. Mast. No.
    Mr. Meeks. Because it was Ku Klux Klan that raised White 
people to hate Black people. And in their books and what they 
taught every day----
    Mr. Mast. Let me know when you want me to respond.
    Mr. Meeks. And the Ku Klux Klan today, they are still here. 
I get remarks, I get phone calls in my office from people 
calling me and folks in my office and teaching other kids that 
I am less than a human being. I do not say all White people are 
Ku Klux Klan. I do not put them all in one category. Everybody 
do not belong--all Palestinians do not belong to Hamas just 
like all White people do not belong to the Ku Klux Klan.
    Mr. Mast. Do you want a response?
    Mr. Meeks. No.
    Mr. Mast. You sure, because you have made----
    Mr. Meeks. I am sure. I heard you already.
    Mr. Mast. You did not hear enough yet though.
    Mr. Meeks. I heard you, and I do not want to hear any more.
    Mr. Mast. You should hear some more because----
    Mr. Meeks. I do not want to hear any more of it. We can----
    Mr. Mast. If you want to be----
    Mr. Meeks [continuing]. My time.
    Mr. Mast [continuing]. Willfully naive, do so.
    Mr. Meeks. I do not want to--it is my time, Mr. Mast.
    Mr. Mast. Then be willfully naive.
    Mr. Meeks. It is my time.
    Mr. Mast. Willfully naive.
    Mr. Meeks. I am tired of hearing that.
    Mr. Mast. You are ignoring the truth.
    Mr. Meeks. We came here today to talk about a terrorist 
group that has killed individuals in Israel, not a people.
    Mr. Mast. We should have a real dialog.
    Mr. Meeks. And it wasn't all people. My time. I do not want 
to hear from you.
    Mr. Mast. You are going to.
    Mr. Meeks. My time. I do not want to hear from you.
    Mr. Mast. You still will.
    Mr. Meeks. Yes?
    Mr. Mast. Yes. Absolutely.
    Mr. Meeks. You say something.
    Mr. Mast. OK. Let's have this conversation.
    Mr. Meeks. No, I am not having a conversation with you.
    Mr. Mast. You just said say something.
    Mr. Meeks. You are not worthy of having a conversation with 
on this.
    Mr. Mast. I would argue differently.
    Mr. Sherman. Madam Chair, we need order. It is the 
gentleman's time.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Right now the time is Mr. Meeks'. 
Continue.
    Mr. Meeks. The United States and many of our allies have 
long been concerned about Palestinian textbooks that contain 
blatant antisemitic and anti-Zionist references that incite 
hatred and violence toward Jewish people.
    In May, the European Parliament went so far as to pass a 
resolution condemning the Palestinian Authority over the 
hateful content of the textbooks and conditioning future 
funding for education on the removal of antisemitic material.
    The United Nations Relief and Works Agency, known as UNRWA, 
who administers many schools in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, 
is required by their mandate to use host country books. Let me 
say that again in another way. UNRWA does not write Palestinian 
textbooks; the Palestinians do. And UNRWA is required to use 
host nation books under their mandate.
    The bill before us asks the Secretary of State to write a 
report to Congress that reviews the curriculum, including 
textbooks, leaflets, pamphlets, magazines, and other 
instructional materials used in hundreds of schools.
    This report will be important, and it will help both the 
Congress and the executive branch understand the full scope of 
the problem, work to improve these textbooks, and remove the 
content that is not only untrue, but leads to further violence 
and instability in the region.
    I plan on voting for Mr. Sherman's bill. I would like to 
add one more comment about UNRWA.
    Despite the issue related to the Palestinian Authority's 
textbooks, we are discussing at this moment thousands of UNRWA 
employees, many of whom have years-long relationship with the 
United States, that remain in Gaza doing incredibly dangerous 
humanitarian work, and we must keep them in mind as this 
conflict unfolds.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Sherman. Will the gentleman yield? Yes.
    It is not in the interest of Israel, not in the interest of 
America for us to embrace the lie of Hamas that they are the 
official representative of the Palestinian people or that 
Palestinians--or that they are representative of the vast 
majority.
    Now, I do not know how what percentage of Palestinians 
would vote for Hamas. No one knows. And we do not know what 
would happen if there was a fair election where speaking 
against Hamas did not get you killed.
    But we do know one thing, and that is the goal of Israel is 
to destroy Hamas. The goal of Israel is not to destroy the 
Palestinian people.
    And if we take the position that they are one and the same, 
we play into Hamas' propaganda, and we create a circumstance in 
which Israel cannot achieve its objective. So that is a 
separate debate. This is, because to the extent Hamas has any 
support, it is precisely because of an educational system that 
is so awful.
    And so taking a step toward improving that education system 
is an important step. This bill should not be controversial. It 
should not be where we debate whether Hamas has 10 percent or 
90 percent or 3 percent or 42 percent of popular support.
    Nor does it make any sense to evaluate the popular support 
anything has in an atmosphere where there is not free speech 
and democracy. God knows Putin has a lot of support in Russia, 
because you cannot find out anything--you cannot get 
information on the other side.
    So I think that we have to drive a wedge between Hamas and 
the Palestinian people. I think we need to pass this bill. And 
I do not think we need to say that all Palestinians are 
responsible for what Hamas has done. Keep in mind that 
Palestinians live in three areas--many areas, but three that 
are there in the area nominally controlled by Israel.
    Those who are Palestinian Israelis have--as one of their 
chief leaders came forward and said now is the time to be calm 
and expressed their just terrible pain at those who had been 
killed. We have Palestinians on the West Bank who have had more 
freedom than those in Gaza, and their support for Hamas seems 
to be considerably less.
    And then you have those Palestinians who have lived under 
the thumb of Hamas, who has controlled the information. 
Unfortunately controlled the textbooks. Let's pass this bill, 
and let's take one step toward letting the Palestinian people 
have honest information. And if we want to debate the degree to 
which Hamas has support among Palestinians, let's do it some 
other day.
    I yield back.
    Mrs. Kim of California. The gentleman yields back. Does any 
member want recognition?
    Mr. Lawler. Madam Chair?
    Mrs. Kim of California. Mr. Lawler?
    Mr. Lawler. Yes, Madam Chair, I yield my time to Mr. Mast.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Mr. Mast is recognized.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Lawler.
    I could ask for my colleagues' words to be taken down, but 
I won't, because I believe in free speech, and I believe in 
your right to speak. I also believe that I am worthy to speak. 
I believe that I am worthy to speak simply because I am an 
American. And I offered to present thoughtful information that 
has been brought forward, literally in this committee, as I 
mentioned.
    And I will say it again, it has been brought forward by 
Republicans and Democrats, Republican witnesses and Democrat 
witnesses. Not just in 2023, but 2022 and 2021 and 2018, 2019. 
You name the year. It is continually brought forward, that they 
would win popular election, that they are the popular group.
    We do not separate Gaza and the West Bank in terms of 
government, that is a different conversation that should 
perhaps be had. But it is continually said by entity after 
entity after entity.
    And the equivalency that is being made here would be like 
trying to separate the bulk of the German population from those 
that were Nazis in World War II. The argument that, you know, 
you want to ask me if I was a member of the--if I am a member 
of the Ku Klux Klan because I am White?
    Well, I am half White, I am half Mexican. I know there's a 
lot of identity politics that gets played here. But no, of 
course I am not. I am not a part of that hate organization, 
which I would absolutely despise.
    But let's recall that they are not our government. They are 
not. And there's instance after instance after instance of the 
vast majority of our population that stood up against such 
hatred, thank God.
    And if you want to have another argument about the history 
of the Democratic Party, we could do that in length. But I 
suspect you do not, because you would lose the factual argument 
on that one as well. Because I will bring facts. I will bring 
facts.
    Mr. Meeks. Let's bring facts.
    Mr. Mast. Yes, let's talk about the--look, I do not want to 
bastardize Mr. Sherman's bill because it is good policy. But we 
could talk about the stance of your party, the fugitive slave 
laws, you know, the history of amendments for people to vote 
over and over.
    I mean, we could have another debate on that another day, I 
am not going to bastardize Mr. Sherman's amendment for the 
purpose of your party.
    But the fact is, I brought facts about exactly what the 
Palestinian people have been doing. The fact that they weren't 
standing up against taking these hostages, are not turning over 
these hostages as we speak. That is just simply not what is 
happening.
    And Mr. Lawler, I thank you for the time.
    Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I yield 
back.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, the gentleman yields 
back. Is there any further discussion?
    Mr. Phillips. I will make this quick, Madam Chair. But I 
just----
    Mrs. Kim of California. Mr. Phillips is recognized.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair.
    I am a fierce defender of Israel, I have great affection 
for its people. I despise Hamas, I think like every one of us 
in this room. But above all, I have affection for humanity. And 
I think like every one of you in this room, no matter your 
politics, do.
    And Mr. Mast, you know my affection and appreciation of you 
and your Service and sacrifices to this country.
    I just want to make it clear, as a defender of Israel, that 
I have spoken with a lot of Palestinians. Because I want to 
learn about the very question we are talking about right now. 
You know, does Hamas represent you?
    Truth is, the last election was in the early 2000's. An 
overwhelming majority of Gazans have never had the chance to 
actually vote for those who represent them. And I just need to 
say this publicly, I think it is analogous to saying that all 
Americans are Democrats or all Americans are Republicans. That 
is not the case.
    And I just think as we have these discussions that we will 
be collectively more effective if we recognize that we might be 
able to play a role in legitimate Palestinian self-
determination with a legitimately democratically elected 
government, with legitimate rights and freedoms and protections 
and safety and security and prosperity.
    And I would just ask that we perhaps consider that. Because 
it is my belief, as a man of the Jewish faith, as a supporter 
of Israel, that we all have a responsibility to care about the 
Palestinian suffering, the same kids just like little Abigail 
here, who is being held hostage in Gaza.
    There are many like her who have nothing to do with this 
who are losing their lives. And I just think we need that equal 
dose of compassion.
    And I just want to say thank you. This is the kind of 
discussion that I hope we can turn chicken crap into chicken 
salad. Thank you.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, the gentleman yields 
back. Mr. Moskowitz, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Moskowitz. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I just want to make one point. And you all have heard how I 
feel on this subject. But I do not believe that everyone in 
Gaza is Hamas, and I do not believe that every Palestinian is 
Hamas. But I will make one analogous point.
    If you go to any Holocaust museum, you will learn about all 
of the Germans that hid Jews in their attic, saved Jews. There 
are gardens built to these people who stood up during that 
time. I look forward to hearing the stories out of Gaza for the 
people who did that for the Jewish people who were held 
hostage.
    With that, I will yield the balance of my time to Ranking 
Member Meeks.
    Mr. Meeks. I just want to say this----
    Mrs. Kim of California. Mr. Meeks, you are recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. You know, being raised, and I thank Mr. Phillips 
for his comments, Mr. Sherman. But it becomes really personal 
to me.
    I can recall in my community, because it is personal, when 
African Americans were being brutalized in the South, in the 
North. Didn't have the right to vote. Was whipped, was hung.
    You say the Ku Klux Klan wasn't the government. Many of 
them were elected. They were senators, they were members of the 
House, they were judges. So they were part of the government.
    And I would urge in my community people who would grow up 
and say I hate White people. Because their vision was they were 
all the same. And I fought to say you cannot hate all White 
people. You cannot say they are all the same.
    Many of them did not come to my aid or to my parents' aid, 
or to my grandparents' aid. I have lived it. It would have been 
easy to say all White people were bad, and many of my folks 
wanted to do that.
    Dr. King died. He walked arm-in-arm with Jewish people to 
make it so that we would all have a better life. There was 
people that was against Dr. King because he said I am not going 
to, I do not hate. I do not put them all in the same category.
    You cannot put human beings all in the same category. And 
that is what really got me upset here, because what I saw was 
you are putting human beings all in the same category and 
saying that there is no difference between the two. I have 
fought against that all of my life.
    And I am going to fight for that, because we are all human 
beings. And we are not all the same. There's good and there's 
bad. Hamas is bad. And I cannot stand for just broadly saying 
everybody, because of one nationality or who they are, that 
they are all the same. That never brings us to any peace.
    I am looking for the day when we can say, and what I love 
about America and moving forward is that it is allowing people, 
through all the problems, we are moving toward and now we are 
seeking to be a more perfect nation so that everybody can live 
collectively and not classified as this or that, but as humans.
    And what I feel about Hamas is the way I felt about the Ku 
Klux Klan. The Ku Klux Klan did not look at African Americans 
as humans. Hamas doesn't look at Jews as humans. And that has 
got to stop. And we can only do it collectively when we 
recognize that there are good and bad. Let's go after the bad, 
but let's try to help the good.
    Because in the end, if we do that, this place will be a 
better place. And so I cannot tolerate, that just upsets me 
when we try to put everybody in one circle. It should not 
happen that way. I yield back.
    Mrs. Kim of California. The gentleman yields back. Thank 
you for that discussion.
    Mr. Sherman. I would ask--Madam Chairman, the opportunity 
to speak for 2 minutes. Or I know Mr. Keating----
    Mrs. Kim of California. Mr. Keating, would like to speak?
    Mr. Keating. Madam Chair----
    Mrs. Kim of California. OK, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Keating. Perhaps this is a good time. I sat here and 
thought back at the early lessons of my life. And I had a 
grandmother and grandfather who came from Ireland.
    They worked hard. They brought up eight children. One of 
them saved a gentleman's life when he was carrying lead and 
lost his life, he was machine-gunned to death doing that. They 
have given a lot to this country.
    And when they wanted and saved and scrimped, my grandmother 
was a house servant, my grandfather worked in local farms. And 
they saved and they scrimped, and they wanted to buy a house.
    And when it was heard that Irish Catholics wanted to 
purchase a house in the neighborhood back then, people in that 
neighborhood, Yankee people, people with prejudice, called an 
emergency meeting in the neighborhood. They said we have to 
gather together. We cannot let these Irish Catholics buy a 
house in our neighborhood and own a home.
    My grandmother told me this story about the meeting. They 
weren't successful. But a few years later, right down the 
street, a 2-minute walk, they wanted to purchase some land to 
build a temple in that neighborhood, a synagogue in that 
neighborhood.
    And the same woman went around to the neighborhood with the 
alarm and said we have to have a neighborhood meeting so that 
Jewish people cannot have this synagogue in our neighborhood. 
It will destroy our neighborhood.
    And at that time, my grandmother even took the town meeting 
floor to speak in favor of having a temple in that 
neighborhood, particularly when the same woman called her up 
and said we have an emergency meeting, we need you there. They 
want to build a Jewish temple in the neighborhood.
    And my grandmother with her brogue said, ``Well, this would 
not be the same type of meeting you had about me, would it?'' 
And she told me this lesson as a young child. And she told me 
because she wanted me to know that discrimination against one 
is discrimination against all, an important lesson that we 
should remember today.
    Because Palestinians are being lumped into a category where 
a terrorist group is there. And you know, when we do this and 
have this discussion, we are playing right into their hands. We 
are playing into the hands of Hamas, who have other kind of 
weapons, other than what we saw just a short time ago in 
Israel.
    They have weapons of hate. They want to create violence and 
turmoil. And they want to stir those up and weaponize those 
things too.
    So I think we should realize that be careful how we 
categorize things, especially in this position here, where the 
world will be watching and listening. Because we cannot play 
into their hands. They have to be defeated at every level, and 
that includes making sure that we are not engaging in rhetoric 
that is divisive, unfair, and discriminatory.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Sherman. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Keating. Yes.
    Mr. Sherman. It is--first of all, as to the righteous who 
protected Jews from the Nazis, they had the opportunity to do 
so. There are 200, 250 Jews in Gaza, there is no opportunity 
for a Schindler to hire them or for a Dutch family to shelter 
them.
    But there are Palestinians who are helping Mossad, helping 
Israeli intelligence as we speak. And that is the only 
practical way, and I would not be surprised if there are 
Palestinians who identify the location of some of the hostages.
    So equating Hamas with the Palestinians is wrong for 
several reasons. First, it is not true. But second, even if it 
were true, and it is true to some extent, obviously Hamas has 
some support, it is extremely harmful to Israel to equate the 
two.
    Israel may be able to deal with 30,000 Hamas fighters. 
Israel would prefer not to deal with two million people and 
identify each one of them as an implacable enemy.
    The fact is that if this operation goes as it should, there 
are people who will have leaned in the direction of Hamas when 
Hamas is in power and will lead in another direction especially 
when we all hope that the Gaza has better governance a year or 
two from now.
    So there may be some people who kind of root for Hamas 
today and will turn their backs on them tomorrow. But for God's 
sakes, please vote for the bill. It has nothing to do with what 
we are talking about.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you. All right.
    There being no further discussion of the bill, the 
committee will move to consideration of amendments. So does any 
member wish to offer an amendment?
    OK, there being no amendments, I move that the committee 
report H.R. 3266 to the House with a favorable recommendation.
    Mr. Sherman. I would like a recorded vote.
    Mrs. Kim of California. All those in favor, signify by 
saying aye.
    (Chorus of aye.)
    Mrs. Kim of California. All those opposed, signify saying 
no.
    Mr. Sherman. Madam Chair, I am requesting a recorded vote.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Yes. In my opinion of the chair, 
the ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to.
    You still want recorded vote? It is agreed to.
    Mr. Sherman. Yes, as I indicated the----
    Mrs. Kim of California. OK.
    Mr. Sherman. People in your party have--give a committee 
more credibility if it has a recorded vote on the bill.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Good, a roll call vote has been 
requested, and pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, 
this vote will be postponed.
    Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Pursuant to notice, I now call up 
H.R. 3774, the SHIP Act.
    [The Bill H.R. 3774 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mrs. Kim of California. The bill was circulated in advance, 
and the Clerk shall designate the bill.
    The Clerk. H.R. 3774 to impose additional sanctions with 
respect to the importation and facilitation of the importation 
of petroleum products from Iran, and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America----
    Mrs. Kim of California. Without objection, the first 
reading is dispensed with and the bill is considered read and 
open to amendment at any point.
    Without objection, the Lawler Amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, No. 91, circulated to members in advance, shall be 
considered as read and will be treated as original text for 
purposes of amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Lawler follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mrs. Kim of California. Is there any discussion on the 
bill? Mr. Lawler, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    In the wake of the reprehensible terrorist attacks against 
our closest ally, Israel, on October 7, it is paramount that we 
work to break down the dark web of connections that enable such 
violence. We have stood by Israel in its darkest hours, and 
today we reiterate that support, ensuring the safety and 
security of the Israeli people from these threats.
    A primary source of the threats against Israel comes from 
the funding that these terror groups receive from Iran. Which 
is why it is so critical that we kneecap Iran's ability to 
provide this support.
    The Stop Harboring Iranian Petroleum Act, otherwise known 
as the SHIP Act, which I introduced earlier this year with my 
House Foreign Affairs Committee colleague Jared Moskowitz of 
Florida, does just that by going after one of its primary 
funding sources, the Iranian oil trade.
    The U.S. has rightly sanctioned Iranian oil, a commonsense 
measure in the fight to prevent Iran from acquiring additional 
capital with which to fund terrorism. However, it is 
disheartening to see other nations do not share this 
commitment.
    In August of this year alone, China imported a staggering 
1.5 million barrels per day of Iranian oil. China is sending a 
clear message to the rest of the world by supporting the 
Iranian regime. In doing so, China and other importers of 
Iranian oil have become complicit in the nefarious acts carried 
out with that funding.
    The SHIP Act, which we are marking up here today, currently 
has over 200 bipartisan cosponsors. The support is a testament 
to Congress' united resolve against Iran and against its 
enablers. The SHIP Act specifically mandates that the President 
impose sanctions on entities that knowingly process illicit 
Iranian oil.
    From individuals operating ports that accept vessels 
transporting Iranian oil, to those refining this oil, every 
enabler in this supply chain must face consequences.
    The bill also clearly States that these sanctions are not a 
permanent feature. They can be terminated if Iran stops 
supporting international terrorism and halts the development of 
biological and chemical weapons and missiles.
    Yet beyond the provisions of the SHIP Act, there is a 
larger message here, a message about the kind of world we want 
to live in, a world where nations collaborate to thwart 
terrorism. One where allies stand up against any entity that 
compromises global peace and prosperity.
    Israel's pain is a somber reminder of the consequences of 
complacency. We must ensure that Iran has no money with which 
to fund extremist groups that destabilize the Middle East and 
the world. We need to send a clear message that countries, that 
they must reconsider their priorities and not allow the weight 
of their transactions to indirectly shed innocent blood.
    We as the United States possess the power and the moral 
obligation to shape the global order. The SHIP Act is more than 
just a piece of legislation. It is our commitment to a safer, 
more peaceful world. It is our pledge to Israel and every 
nation that the United States values above all else peace, 
security, and freedom.
    Let us work together to get this bill passed to ensure the 
peace, safety, and security in the Middle East, especially for 
our ally Israel. I look forward to engaging in discussion today 
about the merits of the bill and why it is so critical that the 
House Foreign Affairs Committee and the U.S. Congress is united 
in opposition to Iran and its enablers.
    I have here amendments in the nature of a substitute to 
make a few changes to this bipartisan bill, largely technical 
corrections and other additions to ensure there are no 
unintended consequences of the bill.
    The goal here is to impose sanctions on Iran and its 
enablers and cutoff their funding that they have used to 
massacre the Jewish people. That's exactly what this bill and 
this ANS is targeted to do.
    At a time like this, we cannot be passive, we must take 
action. I yield back.
    Mrs. Kim of California. The chair now recognizes Mr. Castro 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairwoman.
    I speak in opposition to H.R. 3774, which I believe would 
undermine our national security, harm our allies, and hurt our 
economy.
    This bill is based on a flawed premise that we know all too 
well by now, that more sanction on Iran will coerce their 
leaders to engage in good-faith negotiations with the United 
States. The reality is that this bill would do the opposite of 
what it intends to do. It would isolate the United States, 
alienate our partners, and empower Iran's hardliners.
    This bill would sanction any ships, shipping company, or 
port that handles Iranian oil. This would have devastating 
effects on the global economy and on oil prices.
    If this bill were enacted, U.S. companies would be 
prohibited from doing any business, including transferring 
goods, at many of the world's biggest ports, including in some 
of our largest allies and economic partners.
    This bill would disrupt global trade supply chains and 
damage our relations with important allies and partners. Not 
only would this bill cause a wholesale disruption of the global 
economy, but it would also raise gas prices and consumer prices 
here at home.
    This bill would also have a devastating effect on our 
constituents domestically by raising those gas and consumer 
prices. If this broad, sweeping bill were enacted, Americans 
would feel the pain at the gas pump and the grocery store. This 
is irresponsible legislation, I believe.
    Mr. Chairman, or Madam Chairwoman, I have been a consistent 
supporter for diplomacy, dialog, and even sensible sanctions 
when it comes to Iran. I have also been a vocal critic of 
Iran's human rights abuses, its support for terrorism, and its 
destabilizing activities in the region.
    I believe that we need to hold Iran accountable for its 
actions, but we also need to pursue a realistic and pragmatic 
approach that advances our interest and values. For that 
reason, I oppose the bill as drafted and urge my colleagues to 
also oppose this measure.
    I yield back.
    Mrs. Kim of California. Thank you, Mr. Castro.
    I'd now like to recognize myself to say a few words about 
this bill and I speak in strong support of Representative 
Lawler's Stop Harboring Iranian Petroleum Act, which I am a co-
sponsor.
    This bipartisan legislation will close a loophole in our 
sanctions policy that allows Iran to move oil through 
refineries and ports that are not directly sanctioned.
    Iran exploits this loophole and uses the revenue it earns 
from oil sales to continue financing terrorism abroad including 
Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
    Iran has provided Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad with 
tens of millions of dollars and these groups in turn used this 
funding to build the rockets that are falling on Israel as we 
speak.
    Iran also provides Hezbollah with most of its funding, 
training, weapons, and explosives. In the aftermath of Hamas 
terrorist attacks on Israel and as Hezbollah continues 
escalating on Israel's northern border it is critical that we 
take all actions necessary to ensure that the Iranian regime 
cannot continue exploiting loopholes in our sanctions policy to 
fund Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah's horrific 
activities in the Middle East.
    So I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I yield 
the balance of my time.
    Now I would like to recognize Ranking Member Meeks.
    Mr. Meeks. I share the same goal as the sponsors of this 
legislation and that is to prevent Iran from profiting off its 
petroleum reserves.
    The tyrannical Iranian regime uses these profits to fund 
its terrorism and proxy activities as well as to make 
advancements in its nuclear program.
    In fact, it was strict targeted multilateral sanctions 
applied on Iranian petroleum and banking that drove Iran to the 
table to negotiate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, 
resulting in a verifiable agreement that cutoff every pathway 
to an Iranian nuclear weapon.
    The bill before us today aims to apply unilateral mandatory 
sanctions on anyone who does any of the following with Iranian 
oil: operate a port that accepts or transfers the oil, operate 
a refinery that processes Iranian oil, runs a business that 
purchases, sells, or finances Iranian oil, ships Iranian oil, 
or knowingly works at any facility that handles Iranian oil.
    Without a doubt the target of these sanctions is China, the 
largest purchaser of Iranian oil. If China stopped buying oil 
from Iran, Iran would be starved of the funds it uses to 
destabilize this region and the world.
    But this is not something we can achieve overnight without 
causing ripples in the global economy. In today's 
interconnected world where China is a major player and trading 
partner of the United States we cannot expect--we cannot be 
expected to be shielded from economic impacts at home.
    We must acknowledge that the scope of these proposed 
sanctions is massive. Without a doubt, if fully implemented 
there will be sufficient chaos in the global energy markets, 
commercial shipping, and port operations when we go after 
China's oil purchases in this manner.
    Gas prices in our own country would certainly rise and the 
middle class families would be immediately impacted. Shipping 
from Asia to the United States could be stalled, denying 
American goods they require.
    Again, the scope of this bill is massive. Throughout my 
career in Congress I have viewed sanctions as a diplomatic tool 
and not necessarily as an end on their own. The Foreign Affairs 
Committee is the committee of diplomacy and sanctions are one 
of the most important and impactful tools that we have in 
managing our relationships and security around the globe.
    Sanctions have to be limber. The executive branch that 
administers them needs to be able to adjust and scale them up 
and down as needed to make them successful.
    Unfortunately, the waiver within this bill--within this 
bill provides the executive with very limited flexibility. It 
is one of the strictest standards that can be found in law.
    In other words, the waiver provision is nearly unusable and 
I think this standard must be adjusted to make this bill 
workable.
    Another problem is that it is an extreme tool we do not 
even know will work. During the height of the Trump 
Administration's maximum pressure campaign sanctions were 
levied against a major Chinese shipping company, COSCO, that at 
times had moved shipments of Iranian oil.
    The Trump Administration had to pull these sanctions off 
the books after only a few months because they quickly learned 
the impact of global energy and logistics markets was far too 
damaging, and that was just one company. The scope of this 
legislation is much, much larger.
    Finally, the difference between this proposal and the 
petroleum sanctions of the pre-JCPOA era is that this effort is 
unilateral whereas previous sanctions were done in a 
multilateral manner.
    We did the hard work of uniting the world behind the policy 
before implementation of the sanctions. Here we will be going 
at it alone, and we must keep in mind that taking this oil--
this oil immediately off the market in this manner will be a 
direct benefit to Russia, who will profit from higher oil 
prices and increased demand. The infusion of cash for Putin 
will be a body blow to our Ukrainian friends.
    And I want to be able to support this bill but it is not 
ready for prime time. But I do much thank Chairman McCaul and 
his staff who's worked hard--his staff for making some 
meaningful changes to the original bill leading up to this 
markup.
    The unprecedented sanctions have been removed that quite 
literally would have sanctioned the entire world. There is a 
new safe harbor for companies that takes significant and 
variable steps toward permanently terminating Iranian oil 
dealings and they are better protection for family members that 
have nothing to do with their family members' crimes.
    Mr. Barr [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired and 
I recognize myself now for 5 minutes in support of 
Representative Lawler's legislation, the Stop Harboring Iranian 
Petroleum Act of 2023.
    This is a crucial, crucial piece of legislation that seeks 
to impose targeted sanctions on foreign persons and entities 
engaging in activities that undermine international efforts to 
curb Iran's illicit trade in petroleum and petrochemicals.
    I want to address the ranking member's concerns and the 
gentleman from Texas' concerns in a minute but let me just 
first tell you why I support Mr. Lawler's bill.
    As a member of both the House Foreign Affairs Committee and 
the National Security Subcommittee of the House Financial 
Services Committee with oversight over the Treasury 
Department's implementation and enforcement of sanctions, I 
firmly believe that this bill is a vital step in stopping a key 
source of illegal funding to Iran and cutting off the mullahs' 
cash cow to fund their ongoing terrorist activities in support 
of Hamas' brazen and illegal war against Israeli citizens.
    The measures outlined in this legislation specifically 
target foreign persons or entities that knowingly facilitate 
the transport of Iranian crude oil, engage in transactions 
involving petroleum products from Iran, operate vessels from 
ship-to-ship transfers of these products, or own and operate 
refineries processing Iranian petroleum products.
    In addition, the bill addresses those who are associated 
with these entities and those who attempt to hide their assets.
    The significance of these sanctions, one, it curbs Iranian 
oil trade; two, it disrupts the petrochemical trade; three, it 
prevents ship-to-ship transfers; four, it hinders refining 
activities; and five, it holds associated individuals 
accountable, and finally blocked or owned control entities. By 
imposing sanctions on entities owned or controlled by these 
entities engaged in these activities we cutoff the avenues for 
evasion and deter foreign actors from participating in such 
conduct.
    In light of Iran's support for the unprovoked attacks 
against Israel by Hamas it is essential for us to stand 
together united in our commitment to cutoff all financing to 
Iran's war machine and I would note significant bipartisan 
support for Mr. Lawler's bill notwithstanding the opposition 
voiced by the gentleman from Texas and the ranking member's 
reservations.
    The bill before us is not just a message to Iran but to the 
entire world that we are unwavering in our resolve to combat 
illicit activities that threaten global stability. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
    Now let me turn to some of the objections offered by my 
colleague from Texas and then the ranking member. Why? Why are 
my colleagues so determined to be soft on Iran after what we 
have witnessed over the last several days?
    Why? Why are we chasing sanctions relief? Why are we afraid 
to punish the very perpetrators of this act against humanity? 
Why are we so appeasing to terrorists?
    This is a moment to stand side by side with our allies in 
Israel, not to go soft on the very sponsors and enablers of 
these heinous war crimes against humanity. Why would we 
accommodate and help the financing of this outrageous war?
    My friends talk about the impact on global energy markets. 
They talk about pain at the gas pump. Well, then why on earth 
are my colleagues who are worried about pain at the gas pump 
declaring war on American energy production? Why do they vote 
against H.R. 1?
    If You're worried about rewarding Putin, my goodness, vote 
for more energy production here at home. Oppose this crazy idea 
of politicizing financial flows to American companies through 
ESG.
    Stop blocking the Keystone XL Pipeline. Stop blocking 
licenses for oil and gas producers in the United States. If you 
want to lower the price at the pump and be able to have the 
geopolitical tools to punish Iran without hurting our allies or 
the United States then you can chew gum and walk at the same 
time.
    You can impose tough sanctions on the financing of this war 
and cripple the Iranian oil industry and those who help it 
while at the same time increasing production to the rest of the 
world.
    This is why the Democrats' war on American energy has 
geopolitical ramifications. It ties our hands and disables our 
ability to use the tools of foreign policy available to us--our 
sanctions.
    So what I would say if You're concerned about global energy 
prices, if You're concerned about Americans feeling pain at the 
pump, then support Mr. Lawler's bill and support American 
energy production at the same time.
    What planet are we living on when you express concern about 
pain at the pump and wanting to go easy on Iran's oil industry, 
which by the way has emissions much higher than American oil 
production but you want to punish and discriminate against 
American energy production?
    It makes absolutely zero sense. I guess climate change only 
applies to American energy but it doesn't apply to Iranian 
energy.
    Let's get real, people. Get tough on Iran, block the 
financing, and if You're worried about the impact on global 
energy markets, my gosh, vote for Republicans' bill to increase 
energy production in the United States both to lower the price 
at the pump for Americans but also--but also to give us the 
geopolitical tools that we can use and not reward Putin and not 
reward the mullahs in Tehran.
    With that, I yield.
    Is there any further discussion on the--on the gentleman's 
bill?
    There being no further discussion of the bill, the 
committee will move to consideration of amendments. Does any 
member wish to offer an amendment?
    Mr. Castro?
    Mr. Castro. Thank you. I have Castro Amendment No. 1.
    Mr. Barr. The clerk shall distribute the amendment. The 
clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 3774 offered by Mr. Castro of Texas. Page 2 
line 10 insert the subsection (g) after subsections (e)(2). 
Page 9 after----
    Mr. Barr. Without objection further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Castro follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Barr. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on the 
amendment.
    Mr. Castro. Thank you.
    I offer this amendment because my concerns--my concerns 
that the sanctions described in this bill would significantly 
raise the price of gas back home in my hometown of San Antonio 
and all of our hometowns.
    The primary and secondary sanctions in this bill are 
sweeping and extensive and there's a reason they've never been 
done before. They target our adversaries and our allies in 
Europe, in Asia, and around the world.
    My amendment is straightforward. Before the sanctions in 
the bill are implemented it requires the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office to conduct a study on the effect of the 
bill's sanctions on the price of gas.
    The sanctions in the bill would be able to be implemented 
if that review finds that the sanctions would not raise the 
price of gas in the United States and the President certifies a 
concurrence with that report.
    As I'm sure my colleagues can agree, the price of gas is 
higher every day and our constituents face the pain. Rising gas 
prices means families have to make difficult decisions between 
the fuel needed to drive to work and the food to put on their 
table, medicines they need to pay for, rent they need to pay 
for, and so forth.
    If we adopt this amendment we ensure that our efforts do 
not harm our constituents when the sanctions go into effect. 
Passing this legislation without this amendment is effectively 
voting to raise the price of gas for American families.
    I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. With that, 
I yield back.
    Mr. Barr. Gentleman yields. And I'll recognize myself for 5 
minutes. I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I oppose it 
because it sends precisely the wrong message to the world and 
proceeds on a false assumption that the ability of the Iranian 
regime to sell oil somehow results in lower domestic gasoline 
prices.
    It does not. First, nothing is worse for global oil prices 
than an enriched and emboldened Iranian regime that seeks to 
spread terror and instability throughout the Middle East. 
Second, America refineries are not configured to use Iranian 
oil.
    But Chinese refineries are. More Iranian oil means cheaper 
fuel for China, not lower gasoline prices for the United 
States. As I said before, if we want to get serious about lower 
gasoline prices in the United States, we need to increase 
domestic production.
    My friend and ranking member says that production is high. 
We need more production. We need H.R. 1. We need more domestic 
production now more than ever because of the situation in the 
Middle East.
    We do not need to empower an Iranian regime that supports 
terrorist groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. 
Again, it is fascinating to me the hypocrisy of the very, very 
Members of Congress who are so alarmed, so alarmed at climate 
change, so alarmed at elevated global emissions. But when it 
comes to Iranian oil, more is better.
    Fossil energy from Iran, good. Fossil energy from the 
United States, bad. Come on. Let's get serious. We need to 
punish Iran and the sources of financing Hamas now, 
immediately, yesterday.
    And we need to cutoff the financing for this horrific 
terrorist attack against our key ally. And if You're worked 
about global energy markets, my goodness, stop your war on 
domestic American energy. I yield. Do any other members seek 
recognition? Mr. Meeks is recognized.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you. And I will say we do produce more oil 
today than ever. We also sanction. We do not--taken any or 
purchase any Iranian oil in the United States of America.
    So the reason why I support Mr. Castro's amendment because 
it requires the Comptroller General of the United States to 
conduct a study and submit to the appropriate congressional 
committees a report on the effect these proposed sanctions will 
have on the price of gasoline in the United States. As I 
mentioned in my opening remarks, the impact on global energy 
markets following implementation of the is policy could be 
severe. And I believe this reporting will help both Congress 
and the Administration make better policy decisions that I hope 
will work.
    And I'm a firm believer that unilateral sanctions generally 
do not work. It's multilateral sanctions that work. And it's 
getting the rest of the world working collectively together in 
regards to having effect of sanctions. And with that, I intend 
on supporting and ask all to support Mr. Castro's amendment.
    Chairman McCaul. Does the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. Meeks. I yield back.
    Chairman McCaul. The gentleman yields back. Do any other 
members seek recognition? The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mast, 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mast. Thank you for recognizing me. I appreciate the 
gentleman's amendment. And I'll say it's something certainly to 
think about and consider. I will. And I will simply say as been 
pointed out already that I hope yourself and some others also 
take the time to apply that same rationale to the Biden 
Administration's policies on domestic oil production.
    Ask that question for yourselves. Will it not raise the 
price of refined gasoline in the United States of America as 
outlined in Part A, Lines 14 and 15? I think it's food for 
thought for all of us, whether we're talking about domestic 
policy or foreign policy. But thank you for giving me something 
to think about.
    Mr. Moran [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. Do any 
other members seek recognition? Mr. Phillips from Minnesota, 
you have 5 minutes.
    Mr. Phillips. I have an amendment at the desk. Yes, sorry.
    Mr. Moran. We'll save that for just one moment. Any other 
members wish to speak on Mr. Castro's amendment?
    Seeing none, there being no further discussion, the 
question now occurs on the amendment offered by Representative 
Castro, Amendment No. 1.
    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. Castro has requested a roll call vote. A roll call vote 
has been requested pursuant to the chair's previous 
announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any 
further amendments? Mr. Phillips is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Phillips. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. 
Yes, No. 70.
    Mr. Moran. The clerk shall distribute the amendment. The 
clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Phillips follows:]

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 3774, offered by Mr. Phillips of Minnesota. 
Page 11, after Line 4, insert the following----
    Mr. Moran. Without further objection, further reading of 
the amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized 
for 5 minutes on his amendment.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I share the 
concern with the proliferation of Iranian oil all around the 
globe, largely in contravention of existing U.S. sanctions. 
Revenue from oil sales, primarily to China, provides 
significant resources that enable the Iranian regime to advance 
its nuclear program, continue its support for terrorism, and 
maintain its repression of the Iranian people.
    As we've seen especially over these last heartbreaking 
weeks, Iran continues to support proxy terror all around the 
region that reigns on our ally Israel regularly and continues 
to demand the destruction of the United States of America. 
That's why I believe we must use all the tools at our disposal 
to address the illegal source of Iranian revenue. And when I 
say that, I mean all. That means carrots and sticks.
    That's why I put forward an amendment that would require 
the Secretary of State in coordination with the Secretary of 
the Treasury to submit a diplomatic strategy to also combat 
Iran's illegal oil exports as well as asking the Administration 
to determine whether to establish a multi-lateral working group 
to address this challenge with our partners and allies all 
across the globe. Yes, sanctions are an important tool in our 
toolbox to deter the illicit purchase of Iranian oil. But I 
also believe that we should include our significant power of 
diplomacy as well, the power of bringing like-minded partners 
together to address this challenge collectively. So I urge my 
colleagues to support this common sense amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Moran. The gentleman yields back. Do any other--I 
support this amendment by the way. Do any other members seek 
recognition? Mr. Meeks is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you. This amendment requires a diplomatic 
strategy from the executive to combat Iran's illicit oil 
exports. Diplomacy, something that I believe in with every inch 
of my body, should be at the forefront of all of our global 
engagements.
    I will vote in support of this amendment. I thank Mr. 
Phillips for bringing it forward. And I ask all of my 
colleagues to do the same. I yield back.
    Mr. Moran. The gentleman yields back. Do any of the members 
seek recognition?
    There being no further discussion, the question now occurs 
on the amendment offered by Representative Phillips Amendment 
No. 70.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Mr. Phillips. And I'd like a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Moran. A roll call vote has been requested. Pursuant to 
the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. 
Are there any further amendments? The gentleman from Minnesota, 
Mr. Phillips is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Phillips. I have an amendment at the desk, No. 71, 
please.
    Mr. Moran. The clerk shall distribute the amendment. The 
clerk shall report the amendment.
    [The Amendment offered by Mr. Phillips follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    The Clerk. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 3774 offered by Mr. Phillips of Minnesota. 
Page 11, after Line 4, insert the following: section report 
before----
    Mr. Moran. Without objection, further reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes on the amendment.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'll start by 
associating myself with the remarks of my friend and colleague, 
Mr. Mast, about fuel prices in the United States and which is 
what this amendment is all about. So I want to reiterate my 
comments about our shared commitment to deterring countries 
from buying illicit Iranian oil and continuing to counter the 
Iranian regime's malign activities, whether that be preventing 
Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, providing drones to 
Russia for its illegal, grotesque, and unjust invasion of 
Ukraine, supporting Hamas terrorist attacks or committing human 
rights violations against its very own population.
    I unequivocally stand united with all of my colleagues in 
these efforts. But I also want to be realistic about the impact 
of what we do in this committee and how the intended results no 
matter how important and reasonable might not be aligned with 
actual consequences. And that's why I'm putting forth this 
amendment that would require a report on the implications of 
the sanctions authorized by this bill on consumer fuel prices 
in the United States, global shipping prices, Russian oil sales 
and its impact on the illegal war in Ukraine, and finally on 
ongoing efforts to stop the flow of illegal opioids from China 
to the United States.
    These issues, all of which have direct impacts on the 
citizens we represent, the American people, need to be fully 
understood before we move forward with any new sanctions that 
go beyond the existing comprehensive set that the U.S. already 
has in place. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Moran. The gentleman yields back. I oppose this 
amendment, Amendment No. 71 by Mr. Phillips. I oppose this 
amendment because it sends the wrong message and proceeds on at 
least two major false assumptions.
    First, the assumption that Iranian oil somehow results in 
the lower domestic gasoline prices and it does not. Second, the 
assumption that we must choose between constraining Russia or 
constraining the Iranian regime. We can do both.
    Russia already sells a lot of oil to China. We do not need 
to choose between constraining Iran or constraining Russia. We 
can prevent oil sanctions against Iran from creating a windfall 
for Russia by adequately enforcing our sanctions targeting 
Russia, measures like the Russian oil price cap. Do any other 
members seek recognition? Mr. Meeks, the gentleman from New 
York, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you. This amendment requires a report from 
the President that outlines the impact of this legislation on 
American consumer fuel prices, global shipping, Russian oil 
sales, and the impact on its illegal war in Ukraine, and 
ongoing efforts to stop the flow of illegal opioids from China 
to the United States. It is a very reasonable and I think 
important amendment to this bill, and I support this amendment 
and I ask my colleagues to do the same. I yield back.
    Mr. Moran. The gentleman yields back. Do any other members 
seek recognition? The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.
    Mr. Phillips. Mr. Chair, I just listened to your remarks. I 
just want to comment that we all know that the oil market is a 
global market that is affected by supply and demand, 
underproduction, overproduction. So indeed, sanctions have an 
effect on oil prices no matter where the oil might be coming 
from the ground.
    And I have appreciation for my Republican colleagues who 
are looking out for American people who are suffering from 
inflation. It's a daily case that's made on the House floor and 
committees all around this complex. So I have to confess to 
some surprise that when it comes to protecting these very 
American interests and inflationary pressure that we would not 
at least ensure that any sanctions that we might apply even 
with good intention would have inflationary effects because I 
think American people are suffering despite a strong economy 
with increasing costs.
    So I think this is an important amendment. And frankly I'm 
a little surprised that it would not generate more support on 
both sides of the aisle. But with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Moran. The gentleman yields back. Do any other members 
seek recognition?
    There being no further discussion, the question now occurs 
on the amendment offered by Representative Phillips, Amendment 
No. 71.
    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. Phillips. Oh, gosh. Yes, I'd like a roll call vote, 
please.
    Mr. Moran. A roll call vote has been requested. Pursuant to 
the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. 
Are there any further amendments? Hearing no further 
amendments, further proceedings on this bill are postponed.
    Pursuant to notice, I now call up H. Resolution 599 urging 
the European Union to designate Hizballah in its entirety as a 
terrorist organization. The resolution was circulated in 
advance. The clerk shall designate the resolution.
    [The Bill H. RES. 599 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    The Clerk. H. RES. 599, urging the European Union to 
designate Hizballah in its entirety as a terrorist 
organization.
    Mr. Moran. Without objection, the first reading is 
dispensed with and the resolution is considered read and open 
to amendment at any point. Is there any discussion on the 
resolution? The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, 
Mr. Schneider.
    Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Earlier today, I 
spoke about the Iranian threat. That's what keeps me up at 
night every single night, or at least it did.
    Now I'm kept up at night thinking about the more than 1,300 
Israelis and Americans massacred on October 7th, about the more 
than 200 hostages languishing in Gaza as we speak, and about 
the further death and destruction that lays ahead. My entire 
life, I've worked toward peace between Israel and the 
Palestinians and the neighbors in the region. And that's why 
I'm proud, so proud to be a co-chair of the Abraham Accords 
Caucus along with my colleagues across the aisle on this 
committee, Ann Wagner.
    Seeing countries that had no diplomatic ties with Israel 
suddenly develop warm bonds between people has felt like a 
dream. It is that dream of peace that I continue to hope for. 
What I know is that the threats to that dream are groups like 
Hamas, Hizballah, and countries like Iran.
    Hizballah is an Iranian-backed terrorist organization 
committed to the destruction of Israel and of peace throughout 
the region. We saw on October 7th what that ideology can 
unleash. As the U.S. has done the right thing by recognizing 
Hizballah we're calling in others to do the same.
    Unfortunately, our good friends in Europe often make a 
distinction between the organization's political and military 
wings, seeing the former as a partner they can try to work 
with. Looking at how Lebanon has been on the verge of becoming 
a failed State, we cannot underestimate the pernicious role 
played by Hizballah. Hizballah bombed our embassy in Beirut in 
April 1983 killing 63 people and in October of the same year 
attacked a Marine barracks killing 241 Americans.
    This behavior has never stopped, never paused. The murdered 
Israeli tourists in Bulgaria in 2012, tried to do so again in 
Cypress in 2013. Two years later, they got caught in Cypress 
once more with eight tons of ammonium nitrate.
    That year, Congress passed the Hizballah International 
Financing Prevention Act of 2015. And I was proud to help lead 
a followup to that bill in 2018. Despite our best efforts to 
counter it, the resolution describes in detail Hizballah's 
nefarious activities in Belgium, France, Germany, and 
throughout the European Union.
    I've always said that the world is at its best when America 
leads. We have seen that in Ukraine. We are seeing that today 
in Israel. We have led on countering Hizballah, and we must now 
urge our European allies to join us in doing the same.
    As we look at Hizballah skirmishing with Israel and loudly 
supporting Hamas, I hope our European partners will take this 
moment as a wake up call. Hizballah is a terrorist organization 
and must be designated as such in its entirety. I urge my 
colleagues to join in this bill, and I yield back.
    Mr. Moran. The gentleman yields back. Would any other 
member like to be recognized. The gentlelady is--I'm sorry. Mr. 
Meeks, the ranking member, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you. I want to thank my friend, Brad 
Schneider, for continuing to advance this important legislation 
first introduced by our former colleague, Ted Deutch. More than 
a decade ago following Hizballah's 2012 bus bombing in Burgas, 
Bulgaria, the European Union added the group's military wing to 
its terror list, leaving it supposedly separate political arm 
unsanctioned.
    Despite all we know about Hizballah, a cutthroat terrorist 
organization that serves as an Iranian proxy and violent 
militia, our friends and partners of the European Union to this 
day only include Hizballah's military wing and not its 
political wing and on its list of sanctioned terrorist 
organizations. The Secretary of State's designation of 
Hizballah makes no distinction between its branches. And we 
would urge the EU to simply make no distinction and add the 
group to its entirety to the terror list.
    And all members should reject the view of former President 
Trump, the leading candidate for the Republican Presidential 
nomination, who last week offered Hizballah's praise and 
declared, ``You know Hizballah is very smart. They're all very 
smart.'' Smart is not how I would describe Hizballah. I would 
describe them as terrorists.
    And I'm pleased that many individual European countries 
have acted as has the Arab League and the Gulf Corporation 
Council. And I'm certain my colleagues join me in this view. 
But it is very troubling to me that the EU, an entity that 
shares our values and many of our policy goals, continues to 
allow Hizballah's political wing to freely operate advancing 
Hizballah's violent agenda around the world. Let's hope that 
Europe hears the voice of this Congress loudly and clearly and 
finally takes the necessary step to designate Hizballah as a 
whole.
    It is long overdue and would be a very welcome development 
as Hizballah continues to threaten Israel and the United States 
from his approach in Southern Lebanon. And with that, I yield 
back.
    Mr. Moran. The gentleman yields back. Do any other members 
seek recognition? The gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. 
Manning, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to support 
H. RES. 599, a bipartisan resolution that I was proud to help 
introduce with Congressman Brad Schneider and colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle urging the European Union to designate 
Hizballah in its entirety as a terrorist organization. The 
terrorist group, Hizballah, is a lynchpin of Iran's axis of 
resistence and is responsible for thousands of civilian deaths 
in the Middle East and around the globe, including the 1983 
Marine barracks bombing in Beirut and the 1994 AMIA Jewish 
Community Center bombing in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
    Until 9/11, Hizballah had killed more Americans than any 
other terrorist group. And today it maintains an arsenal of 
150,000 rockets aimed at Israel. In recent days, Hizballah has 
fired upon Israel, threatening to open up a second front in the 
war along Israel's northern border, risking a wider regional 
confrontation, and putting civilians in Lebanon at risk.
    Given these facts, it is incomprehensible that any EU 
member State can credibly assert any distinction between 
Hizballah's so-called military and political wings. The truth 
is there is one unified Hizballah and it is dedicated to 
carrying out terrorist activities around the world. That's why 
this bipartisan resolution calls on our partners in the EU to 
take a stronger stand against worldwide terrorism by 
designating Hizballah as a whole as a terrorist organization.
    Earlier this year, I was also proud to help lead a 
bipartisan effort with Congressman Tom Kean, Bill Keating, and 
more than 130 of our colleagues urging the EU to designated the 
IRGC as a terrorist organization. We must continue to keep 
pressure on Hizballah, the IRGC, and all other terrorist groups 
that threaten the United States and our ally Israel that 
undermine peace, security, and stability throughout the region 
and around the world. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this 
bipartisan measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Moran. The gentlelady yields back. Do any other members 
seek recognition to speak on House Resolution 599? There being 
no further discussion of the resolution, committee will move to 
consideration of amendments. Do any members wish to offer any 
amendments?
    There being no amendments, I move that the committee report 
House Resolution 599 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. Schneider. Mr. Chairman, because evidently it's 
necessary to get consideration, I ask for the ayes and nays.
    Mr. Moran. A roll call vote has been requested. Pursuant to 
the chair's announcement, this vote has been or will be 
postponed. Pursuant to notice, I now call up House Resolution 
1809, Block the Use of Transatlantic Technology in Iranian Made 
Drones Act. The bill was circulated in advance. The clerk shall 
designate the bill.
    [The Bill H.R. 1809 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    The Clerk. H.R. 1809, to require the development of 
strategies and options to prevent the export to Iran of certain 
technologies related to unmanned aircraft systems and for other 
purposes.
    Mr. Moran. Without objection, the first reading is 
dispensed with and the bill is considered read and open to 
amendment at any point. Without objection, the Keating 
Amendment in the nature of a substitute No. 65 circulated to 
members in advance shall be considered as read and will be 
treated as original text for purposes of amendment. Is there 
any discussion of the bill?
    Mr. Keating. Chairman.
    Mr. Moran. I recognize Mr. Keating for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank 
Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Meeks for holding for mark-
up today. Twelve days ago, the world witnessed the horror 
unleashed by Hamas against the State and the people of Israel, 
almost 50 years to the day after Yom Kippur War.
    Israel now finds itself threatened and under attack, this 
time by terrorists whose very charter is an anti-Semitic attach 
against the Jewish people. I want to be clear. The United 
States stands behind Israel in the face of these barbaric 
attacks and condemns Hamas in the harshest possible terms which 
we know in no way furthers the cause or represents the 
Palestinian's right of self-determination fact. It sets it 
back.
    I also want to acknowledge that the attack on October 7th 
is not a distant tragedy but rather a deeply personal one for 
those of us who've been impacted in many ways right here in 
this room, in our many districts, the people that live there 
that are touched b this and many around the world. As President 
Biden said, there are moments in this life when the pure 
unadulterated evil is unleashed in this world. Israelis and the 
Jewish people suffered one of those moments last week and it's 
important we act today in this committee and in the future to 
ensure Israel has the resources it needs to defend itself.
    Today, I want to speak briefly in support of H.R. 1809, 
Block the Use of Transatlantic Technology and Iranian Made 
Drones Act, which I've offered as an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute. As we face multiple crises in Israel and in 
Ukraine, Iran's global malign influence campaign is only 
growing. For example, we know Iran has been selling unmanned 
aircraft systems to Russia which have been used in the illegal 
war in Ukraine.
    The White House even released findings that Iran is 
providing Russia with materials to build a drone manufacturing 
plant east of Moscow. At the same time, reports have indicated 
that Hamas and its devastating attack against Israel used 
drones to disable Israeli communications and surveillance 
capabilities. We also know that Iran has supported Hamas for 
decades.
    To target Iran's drone program, H.R. 1809 requires the 
Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 
Defense and all of government approach to each draft strategies 
and report to Congress on actions they take to prevent the 
export of U.S. and European technology to Iran that may be used 
in drones to attack or allies in Ukraine and Israel. In 
particular, this bill ensures the subcomponents that are key to 
the functioning of unmanned aircraft systems like micro-
controllers, G.P.S. modules, and micro-processors are not used 
in any way, in any aspect of design, developmental, production, 
or operational so that they cannot be employed in unmanned 
aircraft systems. The legislation also includes provisions to 
ensure the Secretary of State is working with allies and 
partners to synchronize our support on an export control that's 
necessary to close the loopholes related to the illegal export 
of U.S. and European technology for use in Iranian drones.
    I want to thank Chairman Joe Wilson, Ranking Member Dean 
Phillips, and Representative Claudia Tenney for being original 
co-sponsors of this legislation and other bipartisan members 
who have also co-sponsored this bill. I also want to thank 
committee leadership for coming together on a bipartisan 
agreement on this text. Finally, I want to commend the Biden 
Administration who's working tirelessly on this issue and who 
have kept Congress informed of their efforts.
    Just yesterday, restrictions in the U.N. Security Council 
in Resolution 2231 constrained Iran's ballistic missile program 
which had expired. In response, the Biden Administration 
imposed a series of additional sanctions. And Secretary Blinken 
released a Statement with 46 other countries recognizing the 
continued threat posed by the proliferation of missile-related 
materials, goods, and technology, including those related to 
unmanned aerial vehicles and the threat that Iran poses on 
this.
    The U.S. and many allies and partners are united in 
recognition of the threat posed by the Iranian regime. And our 
multilateral efforts of the State Department are complemented 
by the passage of this legislation here today in this 
committee. I firmly believe this legislation furthers U.S. 
policy toward our allies and Ukraine and Israel, improves our 
export controls, and punishes Iran for its malign influence 
campaigns. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation, and I yield back.
    Mr. Moran. The gentleman yields back. Do any other members 
seek recognition? The ranking member from New York, Mr. Meeks, 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Meeks. I really appreciate Representative Keating for 
bring this bill aiming to counter Iran's procurement and 
production of armed drones. Over the course of several years, 
Iran has produced advanced micro-electronics, guidance systems, 
and other technologies necessary to domestically produced 
drones. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Iran exported 
significant quantities of these drones to the Russian military.
    Iranian origin drones have been sued to bombard Ukrainian 
infrastructure, including residential neighborhoods, hospitals, 
schools, and day cares. These attacks mirror similar ones 
conducted by Hamas terrorists which we understand are conducted 
by the drones Hamas procured from or manufactured with the 
assistance of Iran. These drones are instrumental to Hamas' 
onslaught on southern Israel which resulted in the murder of 
scores of Israeli civilians earlier this month.
    In recent months, we've been made aware of the analysis by 
our own intelligence community as well as outside experts and 
investigators that found recovered Iranian drones to contain 
components originating from the United States and European 
companies. Many Iranian entities are already sanctioned for 
acquisition of components for production of drones as well as 
their intermediaries. But given the dual use and off the shelf 
availability and commercial nature of some items, regulation 
and interdiction is difficult.
    This bill requires strategies from the State and Commerce 
Departments on how they intend to prevent such proliferation 
from continuing. It also requires the Department of State to 
develop a related strategy to address proliferation of dual use 
technology working within foreign government to prevent the 
export and proliferation to Iran. So again, I thank Mr. Keating 
and all of the co-sponsors, but Mr. Keating in particular for 
his leadership of this bill. And I urge all members to support 
it. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Moran. The ranking member yields back. Do any of the 
members seek recognition? The gentleman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank 
Mr. Keating for introducing this important measure along with 
Mr. Wilson, Ms. Tenney, and me. I'm also proud to co-lead this 
critical piece of legislation that seeks to prevent the use of 
American technology in Iranian drones from its support of 
Russia's brutal war in Ukraine to proxy militia attacks on U.S. 
personnel in Syria and Iraq.
    Iran's development in deployment of drones is a threat to 
the United States and to our partners. The fact that U.S. 
materials are being used in Iranian drones that attack American 
and partner forces and kill Ukrainian civilians is completely 
unacceptable. I'm pleased that the Biden Administration is 
undergoing an important review of current policies and 
practices to ensure that American technology does not find its 
way into the hands of our adversaries.
    I look forward to engaging with them further in its efforts 
to prevent the proliferation or Iranian drones. I also want to 
acknowledge that in July of this year, this committee marked up 
the bipartisan Fight Crime Act which imposes sanctions on those 
involved in the supply, sale, transfer, or support of Iran's 
missile and drone program. Unfortunately, U.N. restrictions to 
constrain Iran's ballistic missile program expired just 
yesterday.
    During this time of tragedy and uncertainty, the U.S. and 
our partners must continue to counter Iran's destabilizing 
missile and drone activity, including by enforcing existing 
sanctions and passing the fight crime act. Congress must act 
soon. And that also means we need to elect a speaker so that we 
can use all the tools at our disposal to prevent the 
proliferation of Iranian missiles and drones to protect 
Americans both at home and abroad. With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Moran. The gentleman yields back. Do any of the members 
seek recognition on this matter? There being no further 
discussion of the bill, the committee will move to 
consideration of amendments. Do any members wish to offer an 
amendment?
    There being no amendments, I move that the committee 
report, House Resolution 1809 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. Keating. Mr. Chairman, I request a roll call vote.
    Mr. Moran. A roll call vote has been requested. Pursuant to 
the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. 
The committee will now stand in recess subject to the call of 
the chair.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman McCaul [presiding]. The committee will come to 
order.
    The committee postponed further proceedings on reporting 
House Resolution 559 favorably to the House on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
    The question now occurs on reporting the measure to the 
House with a favorable recommendation. Now, here's the really 
hard part and let's hope this works. This will be the first 
time--I think we're the first committee to use this little 
device here but it will save a lot of time.
    So members will take this test vote. It is just a test vote 
using the electronic voting system. So I would ask the clerk--
well, first you got to turn the on button on. Some members they 
do not understand that. Turn the on button on. Turn it on. 
Green yes, red no, present yellow.
    And next we're going to use this for the speaker vote if we 
get anywhere, OK?
    [Laughter.]
    Chairman McCaul. Yes, I nominate Ann Wagner for speaker. 
All right. So the clerk will open the test vote.
    Will the clerk let us know when the clerk is ready?
    OK, that's mine. Hey, it's working. Cool.
    Mr. Issa. I assume we're voting yes on the first bill.
    Chairman McCaul. That's my resolution, yes.
    Now, this is again a test vote. Have all members voted? 
Does any member wish to record or change their test vote? The 
clerk will close the test vote and report the tally.
    The Clerk. So on this vote the ayes are 15, the noes are 
10, present is 12.
    Chairman McCaul. Wow. It worked. OK. Now this is the real 
vote.
    Mr. Phillips. I'd like to challenge the results of that 
election.
    Chairman McCaul. Yes, I thought I'd get more yeses on the 
test vote but whatever. All right.
    Committee postponed further proceedings on reporting House 
Resolution 559 favorably to the House in which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
    The question now occurs on reporting the measure to the 
House with a favorable recommendation. Members will use--vote 
using the electronic voting system. This is actually the real 
vote. The clerk will open the vote.
    Mr. Issa. We are voting on the underlying bill. Is that 
correct?
    Chairman McCaul. We're voting on Resolution 559.
    Mr. Issa. What happened to the amendments that are on this 
thing?
    Chairman McCaul. There are none. They were withdrawn. The 
amendments were withdrawn. They were not offered.
    Mr. Issa. This will be a 1-minute vote.
    Chairman McCaul. All right. Have all members voted? Does 
any member wish to change their votes? Clerk will close the 
vote and report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 37. The noes are 
three.
    Chairman McCaul. Excellent. OK. The ayes have it and the 
motion is agreed to. Without objection the motion to reconsider 
laid on the table. Staff is authorized to make any technical 
and conforming changes.
    Next, the committee postponed further proceedings on the 
roll call vote on Amendment No. 75 offered by Representative 
Castro to H.R. 2973 on which the noes have prevailed by voice 
vote.
    The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment. 
Members will vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk 
will open the vote.
    Chairman McCaul. OK. Oh, we got a few more present. OK. 
Have all members voted? Does any member wish to record or 
change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the 
tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 17. The noes are 25.
    Chairman McCaul. The nays have it and the amendment is not 
agreed to.
    OK. I move that the committee report H.R. 2973 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.
    Mrs. Wagner. Mr. Chairman--Mr. Chairman, I need a recorded 
vote, please.
    Chairman McCaul. A roll call vote has been requested. 
Members will vote using our new fancy electronic voting system. 
Clerk will open the vote.
    Voice. What are we voting on?
    Chairman McCaul. Passage--putting the resolution on the 
floor.
    Voice. As amended?
    Chairman McCaul. OK. Have all members voted? Does any 
member wish to record or change their vote? The clerk will 
close the vote and report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 42, present is one.
    Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it and without objection the 
motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Staff is authorized 
to make any technical and conforming changes.
    Next, we have Jacobs Amendment No. 129 to H.R. 5826. 
Committee postponed further proceedings on the roll call vote 
on Amendment No. 129 offered by Representative Jacobs on which 
the noes had prevailed by voice vote.
    The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment. 
Members will vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk 
will open the vote.
    Have all members voted?
    OK. Have all members voted? Mr. Connolly--he needs help. 
Have all members voted? Does any member wish to record or 
change their vote?
    The clerk will close the vote and report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 17. The noes are 28.
    Chairman McCaul. The noes have it. The amendment is not 
agreed to. I move that the committee report H.R. 5826 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.
    Voice. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman McCaul. Roll call vote has been requested. Members 
will vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will 
open the vote.
    Have all members voted? Does any member wish to record or 
change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the 
tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 40. The noes are five.
    Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it. The amendment bill 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 chair--the committee postponed further proceedings on 
the roll call vote on Amendment No. 128 offered by 
Representative Jacobs to the Mast Amendment in the nature of a 
substitute on which the noes have prevailed by voice vote.
    The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment. 
Members will vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk 
will open the vote.
    Have all members voted? Does any member wish to record or 
change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the 
tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 18. The noes are 27.
    Chairman McCaul. The noes have it and the amendment is not 
agreed to. The question now occurs on the amendment in the 
nature of substitute offered by the Representative Mast.
    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.
    There being no further amendments, I move that the 
committee report H.R. 340 as amended to the House with a 
favorable recommendation.
    All 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 has been requested--roll 
call vote. Members will vote using the electronic voting 
system. The clerk will open the vote.
    The clerk will close the--I'm sorry. Have all members 
voted? Mr. Costa, how is your vote recorded? Just press the 
green button.
    [Laughter.]
    Chairman McCaul. OK. The clerk will close the vote and 
report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 44. The noes are two.
    Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it and the motion is agreed 
to. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table. Staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming 
changes.
    The committee postponed further proceedings on reporting 
H.R. 3266 favorable to the House in which the ayes prevailed by 
voice vote. The question now occurs on reporting the measure to 
the House with a favorable recommendation. Members will vote 
using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the 
vote.
    Have all members voted? Does any member wish to record or 
change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the 
tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 46. The noes are zero.
    Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it and the motion is agreed 
to. Without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table. Staff is authorized to make any technical or conforming 
changes.
    The committee postponed the vote--postponed further 
proceedings on the roll call vote on Amendment No. 1 offered by 
Mr. Castro to H.R. 3774 on which the noes have prevailed by 
voice vote.
    The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment. 
Members will vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk 
will open the vote.
    This is the Castro amendment to H.R. 3774.
    Voice. The screen says 4773.
    Chairman McCaul. Well, that's not my fault.
    [Laughter.]
    Chairman McCaul. This is to 3774. Yes, that's all right. 
They work hard. All right. Have all members voted? Does any 
member wish to record or change their vote? The clerk will 
close the vote and report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 16. The noes are 30.
    Chairman McCaul. The noes have it and the amendment is not 
agreed to. I ask unanimous consent to vacate the record vote on 
Phillips No. 70 to H.R. 3774 on which the ayes prevailed by 
voice vote. Without objection so ordered.
    The committee postponed further proceedings on the roll 
call vote on Amendment No. 71 offered by Representative 
Phillips to H.R. 3774 on which the noes had prevailed by voice 
vote.
    The question now occurs on agreeing to the amendment. 
Members will use the electronic voting system. The clerk will 
open the vote.
    Seventy-one. This is Amendment No. 71. He vacated 70 and 
now this should be Amendment No. 71. Will the clerks designate 
that on the screen?
    We're going to revote on Amendment No. 71, which is now on 
the screen properly. I'm trying to do the best I can. So 
members will use the electronic voting system. The clerk will 
open the vote.
    Mr. Phillips. Mr. Chairman, did 70--can I just ask did 70 
pass?
    Chairman McCaul. I believe it did.
    Mr. Phillips. OK. Good.
    Chairman McCaul. Have all members voted? Well, vote. Push 
the button. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? 
Does a member wish to record or change their vote? The clerk 
will close the vote and report the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 21. The noes are 26.
    Chairman McCaul. The noes have it and the amendment is not 
agreed to.
    I move that the committee report H.R. 3774 as amended to 
the House will be 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 roll call vote has been requested. Members will 
vote using the electronic system. The clerk will open the vote.
    Have all members voted? Does any member wish to record or 
change their votes? The clerk will close the vote and report 
the tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 40. The noes are 
seven.
    Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it and the motion is agreed 
to.
    Without objection the motion to reconsider laid on the 
table. Staff is authorized to make any technical conforming 
changes.
    The committee postponed further proceedings on reporting 
House Resolution 599 favorably to the House on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
    The question now occurs on reporting the measure to the 
House with a favorable recommendation. Members will use the 
electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote.
    Have all members voted? Does any member wish to record or 
change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the 
tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 47. The noes are zero.
    Chairman McCaul. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. 
Without objection 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. 1809 as amended favorably to the House on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
    The question now occurs on reporting the measure to the 
House with a favorable recommendation. Members will use the 
electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote.
    Have all members voted? Does any member wish to record or 
change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the 
tally.
    The Clerk. On this vote the ayes are 47. The noes are zero.
    Chairman McCaul. Let's get through the vote. Ayes have it. 
The motion is agreed to. Without objection the motion 
reconsider is laid on the table. Staff is authorized to make 
any technical conforming changes.
    We are now done with the votes. I do not know--I do not 
know about you all but that saved a heck of a lot of time.
    Mr. Stanton. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Stanton is recognized.
    Mr. Stanton. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have had a 
misunderstanding on the first vote. When you referred to it as 
a test vote I did not realize we were actually voting on the 
substance.
    I thought we were testing the equipment. I may have voted 
the wrong way. Am I able to inquire as to how I voted on H. 
Res. 559, the very first vote?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stanton is not recorded.
    Mr. Stanton. OK. Am I able to record a vote now as a yes?
    Chairman McCaul. You can say how you would have voted.
    Mr. Stanton. I certainly would have voted yes on that. I 
apologize for the misunderstanding. I thought it was a--I 
misunderstood.
    Voice. May I make the same inquiry please?
    Chairman McCaul. Mr. Keating is recognized.
    Mr. Keating. All right.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for the record to 
reflect the following. Our office was notified of this vote at 
5:34. The vote started at 5:45. From the Rayburn--I used to be 
the captain of our track team but I wasn't depending on the 
elevators and the subway at that time.
    So let the record reflect that I would have voted yes on H. 
Res. 559. I would have voted yes on Castro Amendment No. 75 and 
I would have voted yes to report H.R. 2973.
    Mr. Connolly. Would you yield? Would you yield?
    Mr. Keating. Yes, I yield.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank my friend.
    Mr. Chairman, I have the same to report. I also was coming 
from the Rayburn Building and I had been on the track team 
once. But I would just ask as we move forward it's easier if we 
set a time as opposed to try to get here as soon as you can and 
we inadvertently, making every effort, missed three votes.
    And like Mr. Keating, I would ask that it be noted that on 
H. Res. 559 I would have voted yes, on H.R. 2973 I would have 
voted yes and on the vote to report H.R. 2973 I would have 
voted yes and on the Castro Amendment 75 I would have voted 
yes.
    Chairman McCaul. Yes, and I get you. My understanding was 
the committee was notified that 5:30 was the time. If there was 
a breakdown at the staff level my apologies.
    Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
    Chairman McCaul. Yes. And Ms. Wild is recognized.
    Ms. Wild. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how my vote was 
recorded on the first vote, 559?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, Representative Wild voted yes.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. Any others?
    Voice. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman McCaul. Ms. Dean is recognized.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was not on anybody's 
track team but I was not able to get here in time. So I would 
have voted in support of 559 and some other bills. I thank you 
for this new electronic system. It's fantastic. I just wish I 
had had a little more time to get here. Thank you, and I yield.
    Chairman McCaul. Well, thank you. Ms. Titus, do you have a 
question?
    Ms. Wild. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman McCaul. This concludes--oh, Ms. Wild?
    Ms. Wild. Chairman, completely facetiously, can we use the 
electronic voting system to determine whether we can go back to 
our districts this weekend, please. I vote yes.
    Chairman McCaul. I would vote yes to that but I'm not, you 
know----
    Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman McCaul. Yes, sir?
    Mr. Keating. Can this be used to vote for Speaker of the 
House?
    Chairman McCaul. When you weren't here I brought that up.
    Mr. Keating. Oh, all right.
    Voice. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman McCaul. Yes, sir?
    Voice. Unanimous consent to put the chairman's name in for 
speakership. But the--on a more germane note I was not on the 
track star team are on the band but I can send a note on the 
five votes I believe that I missed and I can tell you just 
quickly now what they were. I would have voted yes.
    Chairman McCaul. Thank you. Duly noted on the record. 
You'll now have a chance to vote on the floor.
    Voice. I will vote on them on the floor. Thank you.
    Chairman McCaul. If there are no other members this 
concludes consideration of the measure noticed by the committee 
for today and I want to thank all the members.
    There being no further business to transact, the committee 
stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 6:16 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                APPENDIX

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


          STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO

    [GRAPHIC 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]


                             MARKUP SUMMARY

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               [all]